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 .
The Response to the Restriction Requirement has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-4 and 14-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 5-13 stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey et al. (Pub. No.: US 20120124665 A1) in view of Coleman et al. (Pub. No.: US 20050037733 A1), hereafter respectively referred to as Dubey and Coleman.
In regard to Claim 5, Dubey teaches A network device (the probing unit can be at least one of a plurality of client devices, for example, one of the client devices 120-1 through 120-6, Para. 31, FIG. 2, 3), comprising: one or more processors (processor 205, Para. 26, FIGS. 1, 2); and memory storing an application that, when executed by the one or more processors, performs an operation (a memory 230 for storing operating instructions that are executed by the processor 205, Para. 26, FIGS. 1, 2), the operation comprising: identifying a rogue AMP STA (If a probe response is received then the probing unit confirms the detection 312 of rogue AP 130, Para. 33-34, FIGS. 1, 3).
Dubey teaches instructing a non-rogue AMP STA (AP 110-1, Para. 33, FIGS. 1, 3, 4) to switch into a sleep mode (if the scan mode is rogue AP detection mode, the probing unit sends 306 a pre-detection message to the associated AP. The pre-detection message is a proprietary message specific to the communication network 100 and informs the APs 110-1, 110-2, and 110-3 authorized to the communication network 100 not to respond to a probe request following the pre-detection message, Para. 33, FIGS. 1, 3. The AP 110-1 receives 404 a pre-detection message. The pre-detection message informs the AP 110-1 not to respond to the following probe requests, Para. 37, FIGS. 1, 3, 4. The AP 110-1 understands that the received probe request is after the pre-detection message and is sent for detecting a rogue AP 130. The AP 110-1 therefore refrains 410 from responding to the probe request and stops 414 with the method 400, Para. 38, FIGS. 1, 3, 4).
Dubey teaches transmitting, while the non-rogue AMP STA (AP 110-1, Para. 33, FIGS. 1, 3, 4) is in the sleep mode (the APs 110-1, 110-2, and 110-3 authorized to the communication network 100 not to respond to a probe request following the pre-detection message, Para. 33, FIGS. 1, 3. The AP 110-1 not to respond to the following probe requests, Para. 37, FIGS. 1, 3, 4. The AP 110-1 therefore refrains 410 from responding to the probe request and stops 414 with the method 400, Para. 38, FIGS. 1, 3, 4), a sounding frame to the rogue AMP STA (The probing unit then broadcasts 308 at least one probe request to the rogue AP 130. The probe request is broadcast along all valid channels in the communication network 100, Para. 33, FIGS. 1, 3).
Dubey teaches, wherein a Wi-Fi device (the communication network 100 is a wireless local area network (WLAN) such as, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11, 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g, 802.11n networks, Para. 18, FIG. 1. The probing unit can be at least one of a plurality of client devices, for example, one of the client devices 120-1 through 120-6, Para. 31, FIG. 2, 3) is configured to receive a reflected signal from the rogue AMP STA (the probing unit determines 310 whether a probe response is received. If a probe response is received then the probing unit confirms the detection 312 of rogue AP 130, Para. 33, FIGS. 1, 3) based on the sounding frame (broadcasts 308 at least one probe request to the rogue AP 130. The probe request is broadcast along all valid channels in the communication network 100. After broadcasting the probe request the probing unit determines 310 whether a probe response is received, Para. 33, FIGS. 1, 3).
Dubey teaches a plurality of receiver channels (communication links (also referred to as communication channels or channels) comprise the physical communication resources over which information is sent between different elements in the communication network 100, Para. 24. The probe request is broadcast along all valid channels in the communication network 100, Para. 33, FIGS. 1, 3).
Although Dubey teaches a plurality of receiver channels, the Wi-Fi device, and the rogue AMP STA, Dubey fails to teach select one of receiver channel on the Wi-Fi device as a nulling path for receiving future wireless transmission from the rogue AMP STA.
Coleman teaches select one of receiver channel on the Wi-Fi device (the wireless interfaces include but are not limited to, IEEE 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g, "Wireless Fidelity" ("Wi-Fi"), Para. 31. The smart antenna subsystem 26, Para. 69, FIGS. 2, 5) as a nulling path for receiving future wireless transmission from the rogue AMP STA (In order to detect and prevent a rogue intruder or high-gain directional transmitter from interfering with a deployed WiNet 18, a smart-antenna subsystem 24 (FIG. 2) is deployed in association with at one or more wireless access points (WiAP) 16 in a wireless infrastructure for WiNet 18, Para. 66, FIGS. 1, 2. Positioning RF nulls 32 effectively to block an intruder 34, 36 (or RF interferer) of an RF transmission pattern 38, Para. 69, FIGS. 1, 2, 5. The smart antenna subsystem 26 illustrated in FIG. 2 allows a rogue intruder 34, 36 to be detected at a physical layer (e.g., OSI Layer 1) and selectively placed in a RF null 32 of an RF antenna pattern 38, effectively blocking the rogue intruder 34, 36 from interfering with the WiNet 18, Para. 90, FIGS. 1, 2. The phases of the antenna array 44 of the smart antenna subsystem 26 are adjusted to adaptively and dynamically reform RF nulls 66 which are positioned in the direction of a new single rogue intruder 68, effectively blocking it from interfering with the shipboard WiNet 18, Para. 92, FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Coleman with the teachings of Dubey since Coleman provides a technique to utilize a smart antenna subsystem to detect rogue RF interferers and to block them from interfering through RF nulls, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Dubey to permit wireless devices to form RF nulls in relation to rogue APs for blocking transmissions interfering with communications involving APs that are authorized to be part of communication networks.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey in view of Coleman, and further in view of Vempati et al. (Pub. No.: US 20120134272 A1), hereafter referred to as Vempati.
In regard to Claim 6, Dubey teaches the plurality of receiver channels (communication links (also referred to as communication channels or channels) comprise the physical communication resources over which information is sent between different elements in the communication network 100, Para. 24. The probe request is broadcast along all valid channels in the communication network 100, Para. 33, FIGS. 1, 3).
Dubey fails to teach selects one of receiver channel as the nulling path.
Coleman teaches selects one of receiver channel as the nulling path (Positioning RF nulls 32 effectively to block an intruder 34, 36 (or RF interferer) of an RF transmission pattern 38, Para. 69, FIGS. 1, 2, 5. A rogue intruder 34, 36 to be selectively placed in a RF null 32 of an RF antenna pattern 38, effectively blocking the rogue intruder 34, 36 from interfering with the WiNet 18, Para. 90, FIGS. 1, 2. The phases of the antenna array 44 of the smart antenna subsystem 26 are adjusted to adaptively and dynamically reform RF nulls 66 which are positioned in the direction of a new single rogue intruder 68, effectively blocking it from interfering with the shipboard WiNet 18, Para. 92, FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Coleman with the teachings of Dubey since Coleman provides a technique to utilize a smart antenna subsystem to detect rogue RF interferers and to block them from interfering through RF nulls, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Dubey to permit wireless devices to form RF nulls in relation to rogue APs for blocking transmissions interfering with communications involving APs that are authorized to be part of communication networks.
Dubey in view of Coleman fails to teach the network device is a first access point (AP) and the Wi-Fi device is a second AP, wherein the first AP is configured to transmit the sounding frame while the second AP receives the reflected signal.
Vempati teaches the network device is a first access point (AP) (adopted access points 110, Para. 18, FIG. 1) and the Wi-Fi device is a second AP (access points 114, Para. 20, FIG. 1), wherein the first AP is configured to transmit the sounding frame (adopted access points 110 to broadcast at least one probe request 128, Para. 18, FIG. 1) while the second AP receives the reflected signal (The access points 114 will detect if there are any probe responses 130 to the at least one probe request, which would necessarily come from an unauthorized access point 112, Para. 20, FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Vempati with the teachings of Dubey in view of Coleman since Vempati provides a technique for access points to detect unauthorized access points through probe requests, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Dubey in view of Coleman to permit associated APs to transmit respective probe requests and other associated APs to detect probe responses from rogue APs.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey in view of Coleman, and further in view of Wang et al. (Pub. No.: US 20210014689 A1), hereafter referred to as Wang.
In regard to Claim 7, as presented in the rejection of Claim 5, Dubey in view of Coleman teaches the rogue AMP STA and the non-rogue AMP STA.
Dubey in view of Coleman fails to teach providing channel estimates for both on and off states of the rogue AMP STA based on the reflected signal; generating a compressed steering based on the channel estimates; instructing the non-rogue AMP STA to switch into an active mode; and transmitting wireless signals to both the rogue and the non-rogue AMP STAs using the compressed steering so that reflected signals from the rogue AMP STA are received at the selected receiver channel on the Wi-Fi device and are ignored, while reflected signals from the non-rogue AMP STA are received at a different one of the plurality of received channels on the Wi-Fi device.
Wang teaches providing channel estimates for both on and off states of the rogue AMP STA based on the reflected signal; generating a compressed steering based on the channel estimates; instructing the non-rogue AMP STA to switch into an active mode; and transmitting wireless signals to both the rogue and the non-rogue AMP STAs using the compressed steering so that reflected signals from the rogue AMP STA are received at the selected receiver channel on the Wi-Fi device and are ignored, while reflected signals from the non-rogue AMP STA are received at a different one of the plurality of received channels on the Wi-Fi device (in step S220, whether the user equipment is a rogue device is determined according to the interactive behavior, Para. 37, FIG. 2. If the detected interactive behavior is the control plane protocol behavior between the user equipment and the network-side device, whether the user equipment is a rogue device may be determined according to the signaling behavior of the user equipment, Para. 38, FIG. 2. Step S602, the radio access network receives a connection establishment request initiated by a rogue device in an idle state; and step S603, a base station ignores a connection establishment request initiated by the rogue device according to the configured blocking information, Para. 79, FIG. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang with the teachings of Dubey in view of Coleman since Wang provides a technique for ignoring signals of a rogue device in a communications state, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Dubey in view of Coleman to permit APs to ignore signals from rogue APs in certain communications states.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey in view of Coleman, and further in view of Palenius et al. (Pub. No.: US 20250113396 A1), hereafter referred to as Palenius.
In regard to Claim 8, as presented in the rejection of Claim 5, Dubey in view of Coleman teaches the rogue AMP STA.
Dubey in view of Coleman fails to teach the rogue AMP STA comprises a passive backscattering device that does not include an energy storage element.
Palenius teaches the rogue AMP STA comprises a passive backscattering device that does not include an energy storage element (In case of passive UE 10, such as when operating in backscatter mode, Para. 51, FIG. 1. The case for a passive type UE, e.g. operating by backscatter communication, Para. 100. The current TAG-TMSI sent in clear text in the DL may be picked up and used by a “rouge” UE in response, Para. 136, FIG. 5A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Palenius with the teachings of Dubey in view of Coleman since Palenius provides a technique for passive wireless devices operating in a backscatter mode, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Dubey in view of Coleman to permit wireless devices to incorporate the energy benefits of having passive operations associated with backscatter modes.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey in view of Coleman, and further in view of Gupta et al. (Pub. No.: US 20210344400 A1), hereafter referred to as Gupta.
In regard to Claim 9, as presented in the rejection of Claim 5, Dubey in view of Coleman teaches the rogue AMP STA.
Dubey in view of Coleman fails to teach the operation further comprises: identifying a beamforming constellation that results in null reflection from the rogue AMP STA to the Wi-Fi device.
Gupta the operation further comprises: identifying a beamforming constellation that results in null reflection from the rogue AMP STA to the Wi-Fi device (a beam-nulling mode is implemented in the receiver to filter the high-power interference and receive the desired signal, as shown in FIG. 5B, Para. 74. Beam-nulling is a solution for filtering an interference with a specific angle of arrival (AoA). Beam-nulling can offer multiple combinations for the interference cancellation to overcome limitations due to array gain dependent on the angle of incidence of the interference, Para. 75. In FIG. 23B, the constellation of the same desired signal is plotted in presence of a 12 dB stronger 160-MHz wideband interference, before and after enabling the beam-nulling, Para. 109, FIG. 23B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gupta with the teachings of Dubey in view of Coleman since Gupta provides a technique for beam-nulling involving constellations related to signals, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Dubey in view of Coleman to permit wireless devices to make necessary calculations involving constellations related to signals for beam-nulling in receptions.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey in view of Coleman, and further in view of Beals et al. (Pub. No.: US 20170149806 A1), hereafter referred to as Beals.
In regard to Claim 10, Dubey teaches transmitting trigger frames to the rogue AMP STA to force the rogue AMP STA to reply, wherein the rogue AMP STA is an active AMP STA (at least one probe request to the rogue AP 130. The probe request is broadcast along all valid channels in the communication network 100. If a probe response is received then the probing unit confirms the detection 312 of rogue AP 130, Para. 33, FIGS. 1, 3).
Dubey in view of Coleman fails to teach identifying a low traffic period in a Wi-Fi network.
Beals teaches identifying a low traffic period in a Wi-Fi network (a block 105 in which a user of the network provides input requesting to reestablish the connection between the coordinator 55 and an end device, Para. 30, FIGS. 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beals with the teachings of Dubey in view of Coleman since Beals provides a technique where establishment of a connection can involve detection of rogue devices before active data communications in the connection, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Dubey in view of Coleman to permit probing units to detect rogue APs before data communications in a connection.
In regard to Claim 11, as presented in the rejection of Claim 5, Dubey in view of Coleman teaches the rogue AMP STA.
Dubey in view of Coleman fails to teach the operation further comprises: increasing, during the low traffic period, a target RSSI of the rogue AMP STA so the rogue AMP STA uses more power to transmit the reply.
Beals teaches the operation further comprises: increasing, during the low traffic period, a target RSSI of the rogue AMP STA so the rogue AMP STA uses more power to transmit the reply (a malicious device, e.g., the rogue device 59, can merely transmit a signal on or near the frequencies used by the first device, e.g., the coordinator, 55 and can cause a high received signal strength indicator (RSSI) value, Para. 23, FIGS. 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beals with the teachings of Dubey in view of Coleman since Beals provides a technique where a coordinator performing transmissions to establish a connection can involve a rogue device performing high power transmissions in connection resources, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Dubey in view of Coleman to permit a probing unit to initiate communications that cause a rogue AP to perform high power transmissions in connection resources and promote detection of the rogue AP.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey in view of Coleman, and further in view of Jain et al. (Pub. No.: US 20250202615 A1), hereafter referred to as Jain.
In regard to Claim 12, as presented in the rejection of Claim 5, Dubey in view of Coleman teaches the operation.
Dubey in view of Coleman fails to teach the operation further comprises: monitoring energizing bursts from a rogue energizer that energizes a second rogue AMP STA, identifying a location of the rogue energizer, and disrupting communications between the communication between the second rogue AMP STA and a receiver.
Jain teaches the operation further comprises: monitoring energizing bursts from a rogue energizer that energizes a second rogue AMP STA (at step 410, AP scan reports and station scan reports are received from one or more access points. At step 420, a rogue access point from the access point scan reports and a rogue station from the station scan reports, Para. 51, FIG. 4), identifying a location of the rogue energizer (RSSI values of different data packets associated with the same snooped access point can help in estimating a location or distance away from another access point, Para. 37, FIG. 1), and disrupting communications between the communication between the second rogue AMP STA and a receiver (FIG. 1 is a high-level block diagram illustrating a system 100 for disrupting connections between rouge access points and rogue stations operating with spoofed BSS transition management request frames, Para. 18, FIG. 1. As soon as the rogue station processes the above IE-fields, it's understood that the current connection with rogue access point is going to get disrupted in 200 ms and it must move its operations. This step is forcibly going to disrupt any existing connection between rogue station and rogue access point, Para. 30, FIG. 3A. At step 430, the connection between the rogue station and the rogue access point are disrupted, Para. 52, FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jain with the teachings of Dubey in view of Coleman since Jain provides a technique for locating activity of rouge access points and disrupting connections between rouge access points and rogue stations, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Dubey in view of Coleman to permit probing units to locate and disrupt activities of rogue APs within wireless networks.
In regard to Claim 13, as presented in the rejection of Claim 5, Dubey in view of Coleman teaches the network device.
Dubey in view of Coleman fails to teach disrupting the communications comprises the network device transmitting in parallel with the second rogue AMP STA transmitting to the receiver.
Jain teaches disrupting the communications comprises the network device transmitting in parallel with the second rogue AMP STA transmitting to the receiver (At step 510, disruption of the rogue station connection to the rogue access point is initiated, in one implementation, by a Wi-Fi controller notifying a nearby, trusted access point to transmit a spoofed BTM-REQ Action frame, Para. 54, FIG. 5. At step 540, the trusted access point transmits the spoofed BTM-REQ Action frame to the rogue station, Para. 55, FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jain with the teachings of Dubey in view of Coleman since Jain provides a technique for locating activity of rouge access points and disrupting connections between rouge access points and rogue stations, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Dubey in view of Coleman to permit probing units to locate and disrupt activities of rogue APs within wireless networks.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McRae et al. (Pub. No.: US 20070186276 A1) teaches identifying a rogue AMP STA (In order to detect candidate devices that may be rogue APs, first access point 110 is configured to listen for other devices appearing to be APs. Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, at 210, first access point 110 may receive network identification information from one or more wireless devices, Para. 20, FIG. 2), wherein a Wi-Fi device is configured to receive a reflected signal from the rogue AMP STA based on the sounding frame (transmitting one or more requests for information (e.g., a probe request frame) to the candidate devices and receiving information in response (e.g., a probe response frame). If a candidate device responds incorrectly, first access point 110 may use this information to provisionally determine that the candidate is a rogue access point, Para. 23, FIG. 2).
Hart et al. (Pub. No.: US 20190230103 A1) teaches a Wi-Fi device is configured to receive a reflected signal from the rogue AMP STA based on the sounding frame (In response to receiving a probe response including the random SSID (i.e., determination block 206=“Yes”), the processor may identify the AP that sent the probe response as a rogue AP in block 208, Para. 39, FIG. 2A).
Liu et al. (Patent No.: US 9998189 B1) teaches select one of a plurality of receiver channels on the Wi-Fi device as a nulling path for receiving future wireless transmission from the rogue AMP STA (uses a null value of antenna field pattern to direct to the interference source or rogue stations in order to restrain the noises, FIG. 3).
Reial (Pub. No.: US 20080317102 A1) teaches select one of a plurality of receiver channels on the Wi-Fi device as a nulling path for receiving future wireless transmission from the rogue AMP STA (a form of "beamforming" is practiced at the wireless communication device 12 as a result of the above-described common null steering, wherein a reception null is aligned along a single path to an interfering transmitter 22, which may be part of the communication network 8, or which may be a "rouge" transmitter, Para. 29, FIG. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA Y SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:30am-7pm ET.
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, CHIRAG G SHAH can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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.
Joshua Smith
/J.S./
8-15-2026
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights