DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to applicant's communication filed on 03/05/2024 wherein:
Claim 1-14 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 and 8, the claim recites a method for an access point and the access point for performing the method, wherein the method comprising the steps: (1) receiving a first probe request for the first security protocol from a first client device that supports the second security protocol; (2) determining that (i) the first probe request is for the first security protocol and (ii) the first client device supports the second security protocol; (3) failing to transmit a positive response to the first client device based on determining that (i) the first probe request is for the first security protocol and (ii) the first client device supports the second security protocol. In step (1) and (2), AP receives first probe request for the first security protocol from a first client device that supports the second security protocol in step (1), which makes step (2) redundant since the information regarding to the first protocol and the capability for using second protocol are already known through step (1). Also, it is not clear how the AP determine the capability of first client. In step (3), the step recites a negative limitation “failing to transmit a positive response to the first client device”, which can contain multiple scenarios such as ignoring the probe request or rejecting the probe request or blocking first client, or any other actions. Also, the limitation “based on determining that (i) the first probe request is for the first security protocol and (ii) the first client device supports the second security protocol” does not specifically point out whether the determining requires positive or negative outcome to execute the step of “failing to transmit a positive response”. In step (3), the scope of the claim does not clearly define the invention and also lead to many scenario that is not disclosed in the specification (i.e. rejecting the request or blocking the first client).
Regarding claim 2-7 and 9-14, the claims are dependent claim of claim 1 and 8. Therefore, being subjected to 35 USC §112(b) rejection as presented in claim 1 and 8 since their scope do not address the above indicated issue.
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.
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.
Claim 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orr et al. (US 20240381188 A1) in view of Chen (US 20240137760 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Orr discloses a method for an access point of a wireless network, wherein the access point supports at least a first security protocol and a higher-security, second security protocol (Fig. 4A-4B, Fig. 5A-5B, and ¶0012-0013 disclose access points under Wireless Lan Controller WLC supporting WPA2 and WPA3), the method comprising the access point:
receiving a first probe request for the first security protocol from a first client device that supports the second security protocol (¶0092 – “As illustrated in FIG. 4B, in Wi-Fi 5/6, the STA 406 performs a probe request advertising the key management methods and cipher suites supported by the STA 406. When the STA 406 wants to join a Wi-Fi network, it sends out Probe Request frames to discover available access points (APs) in the vicinity. These Probe Request frames contain information about the client device and its capabilities”, ¶0094-0095 – “the method includes informing the Wi-Fi network that the STA requires roaming support that includes both Wi-Fi APs that support WPA-2 and WPA-3 security protocols in an association request at block 304… [0095] According to some examples, the method includes establishing a connection with the first Wi-Fi AP and communicating with the first Wi-Fi AP with messages secured utilizing a first security protocol at block 306. For example, in both FIG. 4B and FIG. 5B, the STA 406/STA 506 may establish a connection with the first Wi-Fi AP to communicate with the first Wi-Fi AP with messages secured utilizing a first security protocol. Various steps take place that are not shown in FIG. 4B and FIG. 5B in furtherance of establishing the connection. These steps can be different in the Wi-Fi 5/6 and Wi-Fi 7/8 standards. For example, in Wi-Fi 5/6 which utilizes WPA-2, the STA and the AP perform a 4-way handshake to exchange and derive security keys as part of association and key management”);
determining that (i) the first probe request is for the first security protocol (¶0095 – “According to some examples, the method includes establishing a connection with the first Wi-Fi AP and communicating with the first Wi-Fi AP with messages secured utilizing a first security protocol at block 306 … For example, in Wi-Fi 5/6 which utilizes WPA-2, the STA and the AP perform a 4-way handshake to exchange and derive security keys as part of association and key management”) and (ii) the first client device supports the second security protocol (¶0097– “the wireless controller 408/wireless controller 508 can determine that the STA 406/STA 506 supports both WPA-2 and WPA-3 security protocols (as was communicated at block 304)”).
However, Orr reference is silent on details about failing to transmit a positive response to the first client device based on determining that (i) the first probe request is for the first security protocol and (ii) the first client device supports the second security protocol.
Chen discloses failing to transmit a positive response to the first client device based on determining that the first probe request is for the first security protocol (Fig. 3 and ¶0056-0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Orr to incorporate rejection of lower security protocol from Chen because doing so would applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to ensure compliance for using the most up-to-date security protocol.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Orr and Chen discloses the method of claim 1, the method further comprising: receiving a third probe request for the second security protocol from a third client device that supports the second security protocol; determining that (i) the third probe request is for the second security protocol and (ii) the third client device supports the second security protocol; and transmitting a positive response to the second client device based on determining that (i) the third probe request is for the second security protocol and (ii) the third client device supports the second security protocol (Chen - Abstract, Fig. 3, and 0056-0095 disclose rejecting user equipment using lower than WPA3 security, which indicated that the WPA3 connection is allowed). The combined teaching would be obvious for the same reason indicated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Orr and Chen discloses the method of claim 1, the method further comprising: receiving a second probe request for the second security protocol from the first client device; determining that (i) the second probe request is for the second security protocol and (ii) the first client device supports the second security protocol; and transmitting a positive response to the first client device based on determining that (i) the second probe request is for the second security protocol and (ii) the first client device supports the second security protocol (Chen - Abstract, Fig. 3, and 0056-0095 disclose rejecting user equipment using lower than WPA3 security, which indicated that the WPA3 connection is allowed). The combined teaching would be obvious for the same reason indicated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Orr and Chen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the wireless network is a Wi-Fi 7 network; the first security protocol is WPA2 security protocol; and the second security protocol is WPA3 security protocol (Orr - ¶0044 discloses network comprising Wi-Fi 7 and legacy pre-Wi-Fi 7 that support WPA-3; Fig. 4A-4B, Fig. 5A-5B disclose WPA-2 and WPA-3).
Regarding claim 8, the scope and content of the claim recites an access point for performing the method of claim 1, therefore, being addressed as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the scope and content of the claim recites an access point for performing the method of claim 3, therefore, being addressed as in claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, the scope and content of the claim recites an access point for performing the method of claim 4, therefore, being addressed as in claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, the scope and content of the claim recites an access point for performing the method of claim 7, therefore, being addressed as in claim 7.
Claim 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orr et al. (US 20240381188 A1) in view of Chen (US 20240137760 A1) and Shibata (US 20220338004 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Orr and Chen discloses the method of claim 1, however, silent on details about the method further comprising: receiving a second probe request for the first security protocol from a second client device that supports only the first security protocol; determining that (i) the second probe request is for the first security protocol and (ii) the second client device supports only the first security protocol; and transmitting a positive response to the second client device based on determining that (i) the second probe request is for the first security protocol and (ii) the second client device supports only the first security protocol.
Shibata disclose various scenarios in which a device such as MFP being able to connect to access point in WPA3 transition in the situation that the MFP requests connection using WPA2 – i.e. first protocol – and the MFP does not support WPA3 (Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Orr and Chen to incorporate various condition for establishing connection between access point and terminal device from Shibata because doing so would apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to allow clear condition for connection setup.
Regarding claim 9, the scope and content of the claim recites an access point for performing the method of claim 2, therefore, being addressed as in claim 2.
Claim 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orr et al. (US 20240381188 A1) in view of Chen (US 20240137760 A1) and Williams (US 20150245268 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Orr and Chen discloses the method of claim 1, however, silent on further details of claim 5.
Williams discloses wherein failing to transmit a positive response to the first client device comprises not transmitting any response to the first client device (abstract – “After de-authenticating the UE (103), the AP (102) ignores probe requests from the UE (103). The UE (103) will conclude that the WLAN (105) is no longer available”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Orr and Chen to incorporate the ability to ignore probe request from Williams because doing so would apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to provide ability to prevent connection from UE.
Regarding claim 12, the scope and content of the claim recites an access point for performing the method of claim 5, therefore, being addressed as in claim 5.
Claim 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orr et al. (US 20240381188 A1) in view of Chen (US 20240137760 A1) and Wang (US 20160286469 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Orr and Chen discloses the method of claim 1, however silent on further details of claim 6.
Wang discloses wherein failing to transmit a positive response to the first client device comprises transmitting a negative response to the first client device (¶0086 – “If an AP has received a probe request or association or reassociation request that is addressed to its BSSID, the AP may continue probing and association if the AP can accommodate the probing STA. If the probing STA cannot be accommodated, the AP may reject the association or reassociation request by responding with a probe response or association or reassociation response frame that may include the BSS Discovery Policy IE to inform the probing station of the local/BSS/ESS/areal BSS Discovery policy”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Orr and Chen to incorporate ability to reject a probe request from Wang because doing so would make use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP §2141 -III) to provide details information regarding the rejection of probe request.
Regarding claim 13, the scope and content of the claim recites an access point for performing the method of claim 6, therefore, being addressed as in claim 6.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG HONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7928. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 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, JINSONG HU, can be reached on (571) 272-3965. 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).
/DUNG HONG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643