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 .
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.
FINAL ACTION
This action is in response to applicant’s claim amendment submitted on 07/15/2026. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-12, 14 and 16-19 are amended. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-12, 14 and 16-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Examiner’s Remarks – 35 USC § 103 - Independent claims 1, 7 and 14
Applicant argues:
“Goel, 27:34-39 and 18:19-22. It contains no access credential of any kind to be used by the UE for authentication and authorization. Indeed, Goel's entire disclosure has no mention of any access credential anywhere. The amended claim sets forth the access credential message to indicate "an access credential to be used by the UE for authentication and authorization for the personal IoT network for the UE to access." Goel's asserted access credential message does not indicate any such credential.”.
The examiner notes that in view of the claim amendment(s) the examiner introduces the teachings of prior art reference(s) SALKINTZIS (WO 2022/171303) to record. The examiner contends that SALKINTZIS discloses device credentials for gaining access to a personal IoT network. See rejection below.
Applicant argues:
“Goel's asserted authentication and authorization request is transmitted after, rather than before, the asserted access credential message.”.
The examiner notes that in view of the claim amendment(s) the examiner introduces the teachings of prior art reference(s) SALKINTZIS (WO 2022/171303) to record. SALKINTZIS teaches in par. 0090 the following: “the new PIoT-3GPP device 403 should be configured with the appropriate SSID and credentials for accessing the PIoT network 401.”.
Applicant argues:
“Accordingly, Goel's asserted access credential message (the Floor Grant message) is received only after the asserted authentication and authorization request (the Floor Request message) has already been transmitted, which is the exact opposite of what amended claim 1 requires.”.
Again, the examiner notes that in view of the claim amendment(s) the examiner introduces the teachings of prior art reference(s) SALKINTZIS (WO 2022/171303) to record. SALKINTZIS teaches in par. 0090 the following: “the new PIoT-3GPP device 403 should be configured with the appropriate SSID and credentials for accessing the PIoT network 401.”. The examiner contends that the Device according to SALKINTZIS must have the credential and present before accessing the PIoT network.
Applicant argues:
“Goel does not disclose the access credential message further indicating a limited lifespan of the access credential.”.
The examiner notes that the current claim structure of applicant’s independent claims do not restrict or limit the implementation of the recited, “indicating a limited lifespan”, claim feature. As such, the examiner notes that there are many reasonable means to implement the claim feature. The examiner notes that prior art reference SHUMAN (WO2016070106), provides a indication that the credentials of the device to access the network is a “trusted status” in paragraph 0098 of the their original disclosure. The examiner contends that the indication of “trusted status” is reasonably indicative of the lifespan of the credential because the device’s access is predicated on its status (i.e., …status can change from trusted to untrusted). The examiner contends that if the device’s access credentials are no longer indicated to be trusted, then the device access will be governed accordingly.
Applicant argues:
“Shuman does not disclose a personal IoT network belonging to an operator different from a home cellular operator of the UE.”.
Again, the examiner notes that in view of the claim amendment(s) the examiner introduces the teachings of prior art reference(s) SALKINTZIS (WO 2022/171303) to record. SALKINTZIS illustrate different operators in his figure 1.
Examiner’s Remarks – 35 USC § 103 - Dependent claims 3-6, 9-13 and 16-20
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
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.
Claim(s) 1,4, 6, 14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel et al. (US Patent No. 9,900,172 and Goel hereinafter) in view of SHUMAN (WO2016070106) and further in view of SALKINTZIS (WO 2022/171303).
As to claims 1 and 14, Everson teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a user equipment (UE), an access credential message from a network entity of a personal internet of things (IoT) network (i.e. …teaches in col. 34 lines 25-40 the following: “…transmitting, from the server to the first IoT device, a message indicating that the first IoT device has been granted the exclusive permission to occupy at least the portion of the uniquely identified shared IoT resource according to the allocated quota…”),
transmitting, by the UE to the network entity of the personal (IoT) network, an authentication and authorization request including information about the access credential (i.e., …teaches in col. 34 lines 20-30 the following: “Furthermore, in one embodiment, the Floor Request message transmitted to the server at block 705 may include the D_GUID allocated to the requesting IoT device and/or the G_GUID allocated to the IoT device group that includes the requesting IoT device in addition to the R_GUID associated with the shared resource. Further still, in one embodiment, the Floor Request message transmitted to the server at block 705 may include a query to determine an available quota associated with the shared resource and/or an amount of the available quota that the requesting IoT device can use, consume, access, or otherwise occupy if the server grants the Floor Request message”),
receiving, by the UE from the personal (IoT) network, an authentication and authorization response (i.e., …teaches in col. 16 lines 10-25 the following: “a device that wishes to access a certain shared resource 180 may query the IoT server 170 and/or the supervisor device 130 based on a location, description, or other suitable attributes associated therewith, and the device may then select an appropriate resource 180 from a list that the IoT server 170 and/or the supervisor device 130 returns to the device.”. …teaches in col. 16 lines 40-55 the following: “a device that needs to use a shared resource 180 may send a Floor Request message to the IoT server 170 and/or the supervisor device 130 and wait to receive a Floor Grant message acknowledging the Floor Request message from the IoT server 170 and/or the supervisor device 130.”);
and establishing, by the UE, a session with the personal (IoT) network based on the authentication and authorization response (i.e., …teaches in col. 16, lines 50-65 the following: “the IoT server 170 and/or the supervisor device 130 may generally determine whether or not to grant the floor, which may provide the requesting device with the exclusive right to use, access, consume, or otherwise occupy the resource 180 (or a portion of the resource 180), based on the one or more policies that were previously provisioned to the IoT server 170 and/or the supervisor device 130.”).
The system of Everson does not expressly teach:
the access credential message further indicating a limited lifespan of the access credential.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference SHUMAN.
SHUMAN teaches in par. 0098 the following: “because the gateway node 942 located in the home IoT network 940 and the elected dynamic ad hoc gateway 952 associated with the vehicle IoT subnetwork 950 may each have a trusted status, the topology associated with the home IoT network 940 may be open such that the IoT devices in the vehicle IoT subnetwork 950 may be granted full access to any services and/or information that may be available and/or needed from the home IoT network 940.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Goel with the teachings of SHUMAN by having their system comprise an enhanced networking capability. One would have been motivated to do so to provide simple and effective means to manage network access, wherein the enhanced networking capability helps facilitate access control within the network and makes it easier to authenticate devices.
The system of Goel and SHUMAN does not expressly teach:
the access credential message indicating an access credential to be used by the UE for authentication and authorization for the personal IoT network for the UE to access,
wherein the personal (IoT) network belongs to an operator different from a home cellular operator of the UE,
after the receiving the access credential message.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference SALKINTZIS.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “the access credential message indicating an access credential to be used by the UE for authentication and authorization for the personal IoT network for the UE to access”, SALKINTZIS teaches in par. 0090 the following: “the new PIoT-3GPP device 403 should be configured with the appropriate SSID and credentials for accessing the PIoT network 401.”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “wherein the personal (IoT) network belongs to an operator different from a home cellular operator of the UE”, SALKINTZIS illustrates in figure 1 different operator from a home cellular operator.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “after the receiving the access credential message”, SALKINTZIS teaches in par. 0090 the following: “the new PIoT-3GPP device 403 should be configured with the appropriate SSID and credentials for accessing the PIoT network 401.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Goel and SHUMAN with the teachings of SALKINTZIS by having their system comprise an enhanced access control process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide simple and effective means to control network access, wherein the enhanced access control process helps facilitate security within the network and makes it easier to manage access to the network.
As to claims 2 and 15, (Cancelled).
As to claims 4 and 17, the system of Goel, SHUMAN and SALKINTZIS as applied to claim 1 above teaches access to personal (IOT) networks, specifically neither reference expressly teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the UE receives the access credential message in response to the UE authenticating with an application server whose one or more services are used by UEs via accessing the personal IoT network (i.e. …teaches in col. 34 lines 25-40 the following: “…transmitting, from the server to the first IoT device, a message indicating that the first IoT device has been granted the exclusive permission to occupy at least the portion of the uniquely identified shared IoT resource according to the allocated quota…”),
and wherein the UE receives the access credential message before or during the UE accessing to the personal IoT network (i.e. …teaches in col. 34 lines 25-40 the following: “…transmitting, from the server to the first IoT device, a message indicating that the first IoT device has been granted the exclusive permission to occupy at least the portion of the uniquely identified shared IoT resource according to the allocated quota…”).
As to claims 6 and 20, the system of Goel, SHUMAN and SALKINTZIS as applied to claim 1 above teaches access to personal (IOT) networks, specifically Goel does not expressly teach a method of claim 1, wherein the information about the access credential includes the access credential or an identifier of the access credential.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference SHUMAN.
The examiner notes that applicant’s usage of the term “or” places the above limitation(s) in alternative form. As such SHUMAN teaches in figure 11 figure element(s) 1106, 1108 and 1110 a authentication protocol process associated with access related information”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Goel with the teachings of SHUMAN by having their system comprise an enhanced networking capability. One would have been motivated to do so to provide simple and effective means to manage network access, wherein the enhanced networking capability helps facilitate access control within the network and makes it easier to authenticate devices.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel and SHUMAN in view of SALKINTZIS as applied to claims 1 and 14 above and further in view of Everson et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0100108 and Everson hereinafter).
As to claims 3 and 16, the system of Goel, SHUMAN and SALKINTZIS as applied to claim 1 above teaches access to personal (IOT) networks, specifically neither reference expressly teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the access credential message further indicates a credential type and a credential owner, the credential owner being one of the personal IoT network, an application server whose one or more services are used by UEs via accessing the personal IoT network, a third party entity, or a home network of the UE.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Everson.
Everson teaches in par. 0138 the following: “the wireless access credential 900 includes data 902, 904, 906, 908, 910. In the illustrative embodiment, the data 902 is a tag that indicates the type of the data to follow. In particular, the data 902 (via “05”) indicates that the data is a credential value with a credential activation time and a credential expiration time. Other tags my include, for example, a nonce, public key(s), signature(s), key exchange data, a unique identifier (e.g., UUID), a PIN request, a PIN reply, key provisioning data (e.g., rolling keys), configuration data, firmware download, status reporting, error handling, reporting data, command information, and/or other suitable information. The data 904 indicates the type/length of the data. The data 906 indicates the credential bit format and, therefore, indicates (via “1A”) that the credential is in a 26-bit format. Further, the data 906 indicates the credential value, the data 908 indicates an activation time of the credential, and the data 910 indicates an expiration time of the credential. It should be appreciated that the activation and expiration times may be in any suitable format (e.g., date-time, etc.). It should be further appreciated that the number and types of the data fields may vary depending on the particular data and/or the particular embodiment.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Goel, SHUMAN and SALKINTZIS with the teachings of Everson by having their system comprise an enhanced access control process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide simple and effective means to control network access, wherein the enhanced access control process helps facilitate security within the network and makes it easier to control device access.
As to claims 5 and 18, the system of Goel, SHUMAN and SALKINTZIS as applied to claim 1 above teaches access to personal (IOT) networks, specifically neither reference expressly teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the UE receives the access credential message from an application server whose one or more services are used by UEs via accessing the personal IoT network without the UE requesting to obtain the information about the access credential to access the personal IoT network.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Everson.
Everson teaches in par. 0156 the following: “the cloud server 150 builds a credential blob including the credential to be transmitted to the mobile device 114 (i.e., the credential assigned to the mobile device 114 and the user) and the shared cryptographic key, M”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Goel, SHUMAN and SALKINTZIS with the teachings of Everson by having their system comprise an enhanced access control process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to control network access, wherein the enhanced access control process helps facilitate security within the network and makes it easier to control device access.
As to claim 19, the system of Goel, SHUMAN and SALKINTZIS as applied to claim 14 above teaches access control, specifically neither reference expressly teaches the UE of claim 14, wherein the UE receives the access credential message from an application server whose one or more services are used by UEs via accessing the personal IoT network with the UE requesting to obtain the information about the access credential to access the personal IoT network.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Everson.
Everson teaches in par. 0153 the following: "the cloud server 150 and the mobile device 114 coordinate to assign a wireless access credential to a user (and therefore the mobile device 114 of that user) and verify the mobile device 114 (e.g., by confirming that the mobile number corresponds with the mobile device".
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Goel, SHUMAN and SALKINTZIS with the teachings of Everson by having their system comprise an enhanced access control process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to control network access, wherein the enhanced access control process helps facilitate security within the network and makes it easier to control device access.
Claim(s) 7, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHUMAN in view of SALKINTZIS.
As to claim 7, SHUMAN teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a network entity of an a personal internet of things (IoT) network from a user equipment (UE), an authentication and authorization request including information about an access credential (i.e., …teaches in par. 0105 the following: “If so, the IoT device(s) 1 150 may then transmit a registration message to the dynamic ad hoc gateway 1160, as depicted at 1 106, wherein the registration message may include an announcement payload, one or more context policies, and/or any other suitable information that may enable the dynamic ad hoc gateway 1 160 to manage communications with the IoT device(s) 1150. For example, in various embodiments, the context policies included in the registration message transmitted to the dynamic ad hoc gateway 1160 may generally include sufficient details to allow the dynamic ad hoc gateway 1 160 to act as a functional proxy for the IoT device(s) 1 150 independent of any type(s) associated therewith. In various embodiments, in response to receiving the registration message from the IoT device(s) 1 150, the dynamic ad hoc gateway 1 160 may then determine whether there is a need to authenticate the registering IoT device(s) 1 150, as depicted at 1 108, in which case a connection may be established between peer-to-peer applications running on the dynamic ad hoc gateway 1160 and the IoT device(s) 1150 to implement an application-to-application security policy procedure, as depicted at 11 10. In response to suitably authenticating the IoT device(s) 1150 through the application-to-application security policy procedure, the IoT device(s) 1150 may then be registered with the dynamic ad hoc gateway 1160 within the ISN 1 120 and ready to request external services or engage in inter-network communication through the dynamic ad hoc gateway 1 160, as depicted at 11 12.” …teaches in par. 0106 the following: “may aggregate service requests received from the IoT devices 1250, 1255 within the managed ISNs, request the services from external ISNs on behalf of the IoT devices 1250, 1255 within the managed ISNs, and provision the IoT devices 1250, 1255 within the managed ISNs with any services that were requested from and found on external ISNs,”),
the access credential message further indicating a limited lifespan of the access credential (i.e., …teaches par. 0098 the following: “because the gateway node 942 located in the home IoT network 940 and the elected dynamic ad hoc gateway 952 associated with the vehicle IoT subnetwork 950 may each have a trusted status, the topology associated with the home IoT network 940 may be open such that the IoT devices in the vehicle IoT subnetwork 950 may be granted full access to any services and/or information that may be available and/or needed from the home IoT network 940.”),
transmitting, by the network entity to the UE, an authentication and authorization response (i.e., …teaches in par. 0105 the following: “the first message shown in FIG. 1 1 may generally correspond to the last message shown in FIG. 10, wherein a dynamic ad hoc gateway 1 160 that has been assigned within the ISN 1 120 may transmit an announcement message to enable one or more IoT devices 1 150 within the ISN 1120 to communicate with the dynamic ad hoc gateway 1160, as depicted at 1102. As such, in response to the IoT device(s) 1 150 receiving the announcement message from the dynamic ad hoc gateway 1160, the IoT device(s) 1 150 may determine whether the information conveyed in the announcement matches one or more registration criteria associated with the IoT device(s) 1 150, as depicted at 1104. If so, the IoT device(s) 1 150 may then transmit a registration message to the dynamic ad hoc gateway 1160, as depicted at 1 106, wherein the registration message may include an announcement payload, one or more context policies, and/or any other suitable information that may enable the dynamic ad hoc gateway 1 160 to manage communications with the IoT device(s) 1150.” …teaches in par. 0105 the following: “in response to receiving the registration message from the IoT device(s) 1 150, the dynamic ad hoc gateway 1 160 may then determine whether there is a need to authenticate the registering IoT device(s) 1 150, as depicted at 1 108, … In response to suitably authenticating the IoT device(s) 1150 through the application-to-application security policy procedure, the IoT device(s) 1150 may then be registered with the dynamic ad hoc gateway 1160 within the ISN 1 120 and ready to request external services or engage in inter-network communication through the dynamic ad hoc gateway 1 160, as depicted at 11 12.”);
thereby the UE establishing a session for personal IoT network service based on the authentication and authorization response (i.e., ...teaches in par. 105 the following: “…secure session is established with the dynamic ad hoc gateway 1160.”).
The system of SHUMAN does not expressly teach:
an access credential message indicating the access credential to be used by the UE for authentication and authorization for the personal IoT network for the UE to access,
wherein the personal IoT network belongs to an operator different from a home cellular operator of the UE,
wherein the UE receives the access credential message before the network entity receives the authentication and authorization request.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference SALKINTZIS.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “an access credential message indicating the access credential to be used by the UE for authentication and authorization for the personal IoT network for the UE to access”, SALKINTZIS teaches in par. 0090 the following: “the new PIoT-3GPP device 403 should be configured with the appropriate SSID and credentials for accessing the PIoT network 401.”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “wherein the personal IoT network belongs to an operator different from a home cellular operator of the UE”, SALKINTZIS illustrates different operators in his figure 1.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “wherein the UE receives the access credential message before the network entity receives the authentication and authorization request e”, SALKINTZIS teaches in par. 0090 the following: “the new PIoT-3GPP device 403 should be configured with the appropriate SSID and credentials for accessing the PIoT network 401.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of SHUMAN with the teachings of SALKINTZIS by having their system comprise an enhanced access control process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to control network access, wherein the enhanced access control process helps facilitate security within the network and makes it easier to manage access to the network.
As to claim 8, (Canceled).
As to claim 9, the system of SHUMAN and SALKINTZIS as applied to claim 7 above teaches access control, specifically SHUMAN teaches a method of claim 7, wherein the access credential message further includes entity information indicating one or more entities performing the authentication and authorization (i.e., …teaches in figure 11 figure element(s) 1106, 1108 and 1110 a authentication process associated with access message),
and wherein the authentication and authorization request includes the entity information (i.e., …teaches in figure 11 figure element(s) 1106, 1108 and 1110 a authentication process associated with access message).
As to claim 13, the system of SHUMAN and SALKINTZIS as applied to claim 7 above teaches access control, specifically SHUMAN teaches a method of claim 7, wherein the information about the access credential includes the access credential or an identifier of the access credential (i.e., the examiner notes that applicant’s usage of the term “or” places the above limitation(s) in alternative form. … teaches in figure 11 figure element(s) 1106, 1108 and 1110 a authentication protocol process associated with access related information”).
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHUMAN in view of SALKINTZIS as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of Everson.
As to claim 10, the system of SHUMAN and SALKINTZIS as applied to claim 7 above teaches access control, specifically neither reference expressly teaches a method of claim 7, wherein the UE receives the access credential message in response to the UE authenticating with an application server whose one or more services are used by UEs via accessing personal IoT network, and wherein the UE receives the access credential message before or during the UE accessing the personal IoT network.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Everson.
Everson teaches in par. 0156 the following: “the cloud server 150 builds a credential blob including the credential to be transmitted to the mobile device 114 (i.e., the credential assigned to the mobile device 114 and the user) and the shared cryptographic key, M”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of SHUMAN and SALKINTZIS with the teachings of Everson by having their system comprise an enhanced access control process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to control network access, wherein the enhanced access control process helps facilitate security within the network and makes it easier to control device access.
As to claim 11, the system of SHUMAN and SALKINTZIS as applied to claim 7 above teaches access control, specifically neither reference expressly teaches a method of claim 7, wherein the UE receives the access credential message from an application server whose one or more services are used by UEs via accessing the personal IoT network without the UE requesting to obtain the information about the access credential to access the personal IoT network.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Everson.
Everson teaches in par. 0153 the following: "the cloud server 150 and the mobile device 114 coordinate to assign a wireless access credential to a user (and therefore the mobile device 114 of that user) and verify the mobile device 114 (e.g., by confirming that the mobile number corresponds with the mobile device").
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of SHUMAN and SALKINTZIS with the teachings of Everson by having their system comprise an enhanced access control process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to control network access, wherein the enhanced access control process helps facilitate security within the network and makes it easier to control device access.
As to claim 12, the system of SHUMAN and SALKINTZIS as applied to claim 7 above teaches access control, specifically SHUMAN teaches a method of claim 7, wherein the UE receives the access credential message from an application server whose one or more services are used by UEs via accessing the personal IoT network with the UE requesting to obtain the information about the access credential to access the personal IoT network.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Everson.
Everson teaches in par. 0317 the following: "the edge device 118 generates and transmits an access control decision message to the mobile device 114 indicating whether the credential was successfully authenticated (e.g., and access was gained).").
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of SHUMAN and SALKINTZIS with the teachings of Everson by having their system comprise an enhanced access control process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to control network access, wherein the enhanced access control process helps facilitate security within the network and makes it easier to control device access.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN F WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3826.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. 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.
/BRYAN F WRIGHT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights