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 filing of 12/11/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1: is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: a device/machine claim.
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitations, “generate a control and provisioning of wireless access points (CAPWAP) packet, the CAPWAP packet encapsulating the WLAN frame; identify whether the WLAN frame matches at least one capture policy of the one or more capture policies; and set an Inspect flag in a header of the CAPWAP packet,” are Mental Processes (generate, identify, set an inspect flag [mathematical relation/function], observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements, “a device comprising, a processor, network interface controller and memory” is applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (device comprising, processor, network interface controller and memory) merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity.
The additional element, “receive an indication of one or more capture policies;
receive a wireless local area network (WLAN) frame” is Receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, conventional activity [extra-solution activity]. (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional elements, “CAPWAP packet” and “WLAN frame” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [wireless data flow] (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to identify one or more capture policies.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
under Step 2B, limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Specifically, the limitation, “receive an indication of one or more capture policies;
receive a wireless local area network (WLAN) frame” is just receiving/transmitting data (e.g., over a network), which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention still fails to amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a field of use (data communication) using a generic computer.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-13 fail to recite additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14: is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: a device/machine claim.
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitations, “identify whether an Inspect flag is present in a header of the CAPWAP packet; and inspect the WLAN frame encapsulated in the CAPWAP packet in response to a presence of the Inspect flag in the header of the CAPWAP packet” are Mental Processes (identify, inspect [mathematical relation/function], observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements, “a device comprising, a processor, network interface controller and memory” is applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (device comprising, processor, network interface controller and memory) merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity.
The additional element, “receive a control and provisioning of wireless access points (CAPWAP) packet, the CAPWAP packet encapsulating a wireless local area network (WLAN) frame” is Receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, conventional activity [extra-solution activity]. (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional elements, “CAPWAP packet” and “WLAN frame” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [wireless data flow] (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to inspect WLAN frame.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
under Step 2B, limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Specifically, the limitation, “receive a control and provisioning of wireless access points (CAPWAP) packet, the CAPWAP packet encapsulating a wireless local area network (WLAN) frame” is just receiving/transmitting data (e.g., over a network), which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention still fails to amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a field of use (data communication) using a generic computer.
Dependent claim 16 fails to recite additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 18: is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: a device/machine claim.
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitations, “generate one or more capture policies associated with inspecting wireless local area network (WLAN) traffic,” are Mental Processes (generating data [mathematical relation], observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements, “a device comprising, a processor, network interface controller and memory” is applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (device comprising, processor, network interface controller and memory) merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity.
The additional element, “transmit an indication of the one or more capture policies” is
Receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, conventional activity [extra-solution activity]. (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional element, “WLAN traffic” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use [wireless data flow] (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to produce one or more capture policies.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
under Step 2B, limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Specifically, the limitation, “transmit an indication of the one or more capture policies” is just receiving/transmitting data (e.g., over a network), which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention still fails to amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a field of use (data communication) using a generic computer.
Dependent claims 19-20 fail to recite additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henry et al. (US 2020/0304372).
Regarding claim 18:
Henry discloses a device and method (figures; abstract), comprising:
a processor (figure 1; figure 2 [processor 210]);
at least one network interface controller configured to provide access to a network (figure 2 [block 225 of controller 110]); and
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor (figure 2 [block 215]; para 31-35), wherein the memory comprises a flow inspection logic that is configured to:
generate one or more capture policies associated with inspecting wireless local area network (WLAN) traffic (abstract, partially reproduced herein {configures a first policy to apply to devices connecting to the WLAN system…}; para 13; para 20 {configure and define policies..}; figures 3-6); and
transmit an indication of the one or more capture policies (para 11 {transmitting, by the WLAN system, to a cellular system, the first event context and an indication of the first policy…}; figures; para 13,50, 60; and see throughout disclosure).
Regarding claim 19:
Henry discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein the indication of the one or more capture policies is transmitted to at least one of an access point (AP), an edge device or a wireless local area network controller (WLC) (para 35 {transmitting an updated policy to a policy engine used by the Cellular System 125 and/or to one or more Cellular Base Station(s) 135}; figures; and throughout disclosure).
Regarding claim 20:
Henry discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein the device includes a controller device (figure 1 [controller 110]; figure 2; and throughout).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 15 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhu et al. (US 2024/0267792) discloses a system and method for dynamic traffic management for multi access management services.
Mohan et al. (US 2020/0153701) discloses a system and method for predicting application quality of experience metrics using machines learned probes.
Tomici et al. (US 2016/0227443) discloses a system and method for MNO control of WIFI QoS via EAP/DIAMETER.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIRDEPAL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1688. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Hannah S Wang can be reached on (571) 272-9018. 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.
/HIRDEPAL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631