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 .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 6/25/2026. Claims 1-19 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karim Lounis, WPA3 Connection Deprivation Attacks, Queen’s Reliable Software Technology Lab, School of Computing, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
February 28, 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland.
PNG
media_image1.png
175
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 1, Lounis discloses a method for connecting a first station (supplicant “S” Page 168, figure 1) to a second station (Authenticator “A” Page 168, figure 1) in a wireless communication network (page 166, lines 2-9 discloses the WI-FI connecting to WPA3 networks), wherein said second station implements:
transmitting, to said first station, of at least one item of information representative of a security mode supported by said second station (Page 168, figure 1 transmits from the “A” to the “S” a Beacon (rsneA, . . . , capabilitiesA, ssidA, bssidA)A→Γ); and
connecting to a basic service set (the basic service is the WPA secure service ) to which said first station belongs, selected by said first station based on said at least one item of information representative of a security mode supported by said second station (page 166, under 2 WPA3 Authentication Phases discloses the WPA3-SAE transition, also known as mixed mode, allows Wi-Fi devices that only support WPA2 to connect to a WPA3 network).
For claim 2, Lounis discloses the method, wherein the method further comprises receiving an identifier of at least one first basic service set to which said first station belongs, said at least one first basic service set being configured with a first security mode, and wherein said connecting comprises receiving a routing request to said selected basic service set, in response to said selected basic service set, referred to as a second basic service set, being configured with a second security mode supported by said second station and having a higher level of security than said first level of security ( page 168 uses the selection of the “rsnes ≤rsneA")( and page 170, paragraph 3.2 line 2-8 disclosing the " ... These beacons reveal information about security information. The security information are revealed in an elementary structure called RSNE (Robust Security Network Element, ... the supported security mechanisms (in a cipher-suite) ... Wi-Fi supplicants can then choose the highest security mechanism that they can support from the received cipher-suite).
For claim 4, Lounis discloses the method, wherein the method comprises displaying, on said second station, said identifier of said at least one first basic service set only.
(page 170, lines 8-9: " only one SSID=QRST WP A3 will appear on the supplicant's device screen when scanning for Wi-Fi networks).
PNG
media_image1.png
175
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 5, Lounis discloses a method, for connecting a first station (supplicant “S” Page 168, figure 1) to a second station (Authenticator “A” Page 168, figure 1)in a wireless communication network (page 166, lines 2-9 discloses the WI-FI connecting to WPA3 networks), wherein said first station implements:
receiving, from said second station, at least one item of information representative of a security mode supported by said second station (Page 168, figure 1 transmits from the “A” to the “S” a Beacon (rsneA, . . . , capabilities A, ssidA, bssidA)A→Γ); and
selecting a basic service (the basic service is the WPA secure service ) set to which said first station belongs, based on said at least one item of information representative of a security mode supported by said second station (page 166, under 2 WPA3 Authentication Phases discloses the WPA3-SAE transition, also known as mixed mode, allows Wi-Fi devices that only support WPA2 to connect to a WPA3 network).
For claim 6, Lounis discloses the method, wherein the method also comprises:
transmitting an identifier of at least one first basic service set to which said first station belongs, said at least one first basic service set being configured with a first security mode, transmitting a routing request to said selected basic service set, in response to said selected basic service set, referred to as a second basic service set, being configured with a second security mode supported by said second station and having a higher level of security than said first level of security ( page 168 uses the selection of the “rsnes ≤rsneA")( and page 170, paragraph 3.2 line 2-8 disclosing the " ... These beacons reveal information about security information. The security information are revealed in an elementary structure called RSNE (Robust Security Network Element, ... the supported security mechanisms (in a cipher-suite) ... Wi-Fi supplicants can then choose the highest security mechanism that they can support from the received cipher-suite ... ).
For claim 8, Lounis discloses the method, wherein said at least one item of information representative of a security mode supported by said second station is transmitted in a field of the "RSN Information Element (type page 168, figure 1: "Select rsnes~rsneA" and page 170, paragraph 3.2 under attack on the 4-way handshake downgrade protection lines 5-8).
For claim 9, Lounis discloses the method, wherein said at least one item of information representative of a security mode supported by said second station is transmitted in a message of the "Probe Request" type (Page 168, figure 1 uses the probe_request (capabilitiesS,. .)S→Γ ).
For claim 10, Lounis discloses the method, wherein said at least one item of information representative of a security mode supported by said second station corresponds to the a number of security modes supported by said second station (page 166, under WPA3 authentication Phases, WPA3-SAE transition, also known as mixed mode, allows Wi-Fi devices that only support WPA2 to connect to a WPA3 network).
For claim 11, Lounis discloses the method, wherein said security modes belong to the group consisting of: WPA2 security mode; WPA3 security mode; another version of the WPA security mode (page 166, WPA3 allows three possible operational modes. WPA3-SAE (Wi-Fi Protected Access-Simultaneous Authentication of Equals) is used when Wi-Fi devices only support WPA3. WPA3-SAE transition, also known as mixed mode, allows Wi-Fi devices that only support WPA2 to connect to a WPA3 network.) and (page 165 lines 1-2 discloses the WPA uses the TKIP (Temporal Key Integrity Protocol) encryption that adopts RC4 with longer keys and the Michael algorithm for data integrity).
For claim 12, Lounis discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (inherent) comprising a computer program stored thereon comprising instructions for implementing the method 1, when the program is executed by a processor of the second station (Claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected with the same rationale as claim 1 applied above).
For claim 13, Lounis discloses a second station of a wireless communications network; comprising:
at least one processor (inherent in Page 173, lines 5-6); and
at least one non-transitory computer readable medium (inherent) comprising instructions stored thereon which when executed by at least one processor configure the second station to implement a method of connecting a first station to the second station in a wireless communication network, wherein the method comprises:
transmitting, to the first station of said network, at least one item of information representative of a security mode supported by said second station (Page 168, figure 1 transmits from the “A” to the “S” a Beacon (rsneA, . . . , capabilities A, ssid A, bssidA)A→Γ), and
connecting to a basic service set (the basic service is the WPA secure service ) to which said first station belongs, selected by said first station based on said at least one item of information representative of a security mode supported by said second station (page 166, under 2 WPA3 Authentication Phases discloses the WPA3-SAE transition, also known as mixed mode, allows Wi-Fi devices that only support WPA2 to connect to a WPA3 network).
For claim 14, Lounis discloses a first station of a wireless communications network, comprising:
at least one processor (inherent in Page 173, lines 5-6); and
at least one non-transitory computer readable medium (inherent) comprising instructions stored thereon which when executed by the at least one processor configure the first station to implement a method of connecting the first station to a second station in a wireless communication network, wherein the method comprises:
receiving, from the second station of said network, at least one item of information representative of a security mode supported by said second station (Page 168, figure 1 transmits from the “A” to the “S” a Beacon (rsneA, . . . , capabilitiesA, ssidA, bssidA)A→Γ) , and
selecting a basic service set (the basic service is the WPA secure service ) to which said first station belongs, based on said at least one item of information representative of a security mode supported by said second station (page 166, under 2 WPA3 Authentication Phases discloses the WPA3-SAE transition, also known as mixed mode, allows Wi-Fi devices that only support WPA2 to connect to a WPA3 network).
For claim 15, Lounis discloses the method, wherein said at least one item of information representative of a security mode supported by said second station is transmitted in a field of the "RSN Information Element" type (type page 168, figure 1: "Select rsnes~rsneA" and page 170, paragraph 3.2 under attack on the 4-way handshake downgrade protection lines 5-8).
For claim 16, Lounis discloses the method, wherein said at least one item of information representative of a security mode supported by said second station is transmitted in a message of the "Probe Request" type (Page 168, figure 1 uses the probe_request (capabilitiesS, . .)S→Γ ).
For claim 17, Lounis discloses the method, wherein said at least one item of information representative of a security mode supported by said second station corresponds to a number of security modes supported by said second station (page 166, under WPA3 authentication Phases, WPA3-SAE transition, also known as mixed mode, allows Wi-Fi devices that only support WPA2 to connect to a WPA3 network).
For claim 18, Lounis discloses the method, wherein said security modes belong to the group consisting of: WPA2 security mode; WPA3 security mode; another version of the WPA security mode (page 166, WPA3 allows three possible operational modes. WPA3-SAE (Wi-Fi Protected Access-Simultaneous Authentication of Equals) is used when Wi-Fi devices only support WPA3. WPA3-SAE transition, also known as mixed mode, allows Wi-Fi devices that only support WPA2 to connect to a WPA3 network.) and (page 165 lines 1-2 discloses the WPA uses the TKIP (Temporal Key Integrity Protocol) encryption that adopts RC4 with longer keys and the Michael algorithm for data integrity).
For claim 19, Lounis discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program stored thereon comprising instructions for implementing the method according to claim 5 when the program is executed by a processor of the first station (Claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected with the same rationale as claim 1 applied above).
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:
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 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Karim Lounis, WPA3 Connection Deprivation Attacks, Queen’s Reliable Software Technology Lab, School of Computing, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada. February 28, 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland, in view of NI et al US Patent Application Publication No.:( US 2013/0077614 A1) hereinafter referred as NI.
For claim 3, Lounis disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exemption of the said connection further comprises the transmitting, to said first station, of a response to said routing request authorizing the routing to said second basic service set and the connection of said second station to said second basic service set as recited in claim 3.
NI from the same or analogous art teaches the said connection further comprises the transmitting, to said first station, of a response to said routing request authorizing the routing to said second basic service set and the connection of said second station to said second basic service set (Paragraph [0034], lines 1-7 disclosing the local routing authorization result of the first mobile station and a local routing authorization result of the second mobile station are both success, transmitting, by performing local routing, a service flow corresponding to the service flow information of the first mobile station and a service flow corresponding to the service flow information of the second mobile station). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the said connection further comprises the transmitting, to said first station, of a response to said routing request authorizing the routing to said second basic service set and the connection of said second station to said second basic service set as taught by NI into the WPA3 Connection Deprivation Attacks of Lounis.
The said connection further comprises the transmitting, to said first station, of a response to said routing request authorizing the routing to said second basic service set and the connection of said second station to said second basic service set can be modify/implemented by combining the said connection further comprises the transmitting, to said first station, of a response to said routing request authorizing the routing to said second basic service set and the connection of said second station to said second basic service set with the device. This process is implemented as a hardware solution or as firmware solutions of NI into the WPA3 Connection Deprivation Attacks of Lounis. As disclosed in NI, the motivation for the combination would be to improve the network efficiency and the enhancement of the security becoming more efficient and reliable for a better management communication control.
For claim 7, Lounis discloses all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exception of the reception receiving, from said second station of a response to said routing request authorizing routing to said second basic service set and connection of said second station to said second basic service set as recited in claim 7.
NI from the same or analogous art teaches the reception receiving, from said second station , of a response to said routing request authorizing routing to said second basic service set and connection of said second station to said second basic service set (Paragraph [0034], lines 1-7 disclosing the local routing authorization result of the first mobile station and a local routing authorization result of the second mobile station are both success, transmitting, by performing local routing, a service flow corresponding to the service flow information of the first mobile station and a service flow corresponding to the service flow information of the second mobile station). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the reception receiving, from said second station , of a response to said routing request authorizing routing to said second basic service set and connection of said second station to said second basic service set as taught by NI into the WPA3 Connection Deprivation Attacks of Lounis.
The reception receiving, from said second station , of a response to said routing request authorizing routing to said second basic service set and connection of said second station to said second basic service set can be modify/implemented by combining the reception receiving, from said second station , of a response to said routing request authorizing routing to said second basic service set and connection of said second station to said second basic service set with the device. This process is implemented as a hardware solution or as firmware solutions of NI into the WPA3 Connection Deprivation Attacks of Lounis. As disclosed in NI, the motivation for the combination would be to improve the network efficiency and the enhancement of the security becoming more efficient and reliable for a better management communication control.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/25/2026, with respect to claims 1, 5, 13 and 14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Lounis does not teach in claims 1, 5, 13 and 14 the reversed roles stating that the source is the access point, "reveal information about the network settings, such as synchronization information, BSSID (Basic Service Set Identifier)".
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with such assertion. (See below for further clarification). The argument of the feature above is not claimed.
Applicant claims “transmitting, to said first station, at least one item of information representative of a security mode supported by said second station”
In response to the preceding argument examiner respectfully submits that Lounis teaches the connection between the first station to a second station in a wireless communication network communication. The communication does not state properly where it is initiated and when it is ending. The claim states merely the transmission to the first device which in this case is the Supplicant “S” (client device) considered as first station and requires the second station identified as the Authenticator "A". The figure 1, shows the Authenticator sending a beacon to the first station. The beacon includes the “(rsneA, … capabilitiesA, ssidA, bssidA)A→Γ) where the SSID which is a unique identifier for a wireless network, allowing devices to distinguish between multiple networks in the same area. It functions like a digital name tag for your Wi-Fi, enabling smartphones, laptops, and other devices to locate and connect to the correct network. The access point periodically broadcasts management frames called beacons. Those beacons reveal information about the network settings, such as synchronization information, BSSID (Basic Service Set IDentifier), SSID (Service Set IDentifier), and security information. Besides, the claims does not incorporate any different feature than “transmitting, to said first station, at least one item of information representative of a security mode supported by said second station”.
Applicant asserts that Lounis does not teach in claims 1, 5, 13 and 14 the “connecting to a basic service set to which said first station belongs, selected by said first station based on said at least one item of information representative of a security mode supported by said second station”
Applicant define on the paragraph [0020]-[0023] of the current application, the security modes such as the WPA2 and WPA3 as a part of the BSS.
In response to the preceding argument examiner respectfully submits that Lounis teaches “the BSS Basic Service Set for the first station belongs, selected by said first station based on said at least one item of information representative of a security mode supported by said second station”. The BSS is transmitted inside of a Beacon. The transmission to the first device which in this case is the Supplicant “S” (client device) considered as first station and requires the second station identified as the Authenticator "A". The figure 1, shows the Authenticator sending a beacon to the first station. The beacon includes the “(rsneA,... , capabilitiesA, ssidA, bssidA)A→Γ). The beacons reveal information about the network settings, such as synchronization information, BSSID (Basic Service Set IDentifier), SSID (Service Set IDentifier), and security information. The transmitted WPA3-SAE transition, also known as mixed mode, allows Wi-Fi devices that only support WPA2 to connect to a WPA3 network. A selection of the security mode is selected by the first station. The use of (Wireshark) that the supplicant has chosen to operate the WPA2-PSK instead of WPA3-SAE. In fact, after receiving probe responses from both access points (indicating the supported cipher-suite in the RSNE), the supplicant as recited in page 171 under the Attack generation discloses the proper selection of the security. Therefore, the BSS contains the WPA2 and WPA3 as security modes and those are selected by the communication with the first device.
The prior art should be considered as a whole. See also MPEP § 2141.02 [R-5] Paragraph VI. Claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during examination and limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim (See M.P.E.P. 2111 [R-l]).
Conclusion
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 inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH AREVALO whose telephone number is (571)270-3121. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached at (571)272-7915. 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.
/JOSEPH AREVALO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights