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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-39 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 6-9, 11-12, 29, 30-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge et al (US 9,398,442; hereinafter Edge) in view of Greel et al (US 2008/0,013,463; hereinafter Greel).
Regarding claim 1 and 29, Edge disclose a computer readable storage hardware having instructions stored thereon, the instructions, when executed carried out by computer processor hardware, cause the computer processor hardware to execute a method comprising: at a first wireless station: retrieving first protocol information assigned to the first wireless station, the first protocol information indicating a first wireless protocol level supported by the first wireless station (retrieving internal protocol level compatibility information supported by the receiving unit of the first wireless station; col 12, lines 61-66); receiving second protocol information from a second wireless station, the second protocol information indicating a second wireless security protocol level supported by the second wireless station (the receiving unit of the first wireless station receives a message with a message segment including a version of a protocol used to encode the message and a compatibility level associated with inter-operable protocol versions; step 1212 Fig. 13; col 22, lines 56-60);
based on a comparison of the first wireless protocol level and the second wireless protocol level, transmitting a notification from the first wireless station to the second wireless station, the notification indicating the first wireless security protocol level supported by the first wireless station (the receiving unit compares the second protocol compatibility level included in the message that was received to the first internal protocol compatibility level and compares the version of the protocol included in the received message to a supported version of the protocol in the first wireless station, the first wireless station prepares a response message with a message segment including the first internal protocol compatibility level; steps 1214, 1216, & 1218; Fig. 13, col 23, lines 1-5, claim 17); and
selecting a wireless protocol in which to communicate with the second wireless station based on the comparison of the first wireless protocol level and the second wireless protocol level (after the receiving unit compares the second protocol compatibility level included in the message that was received to an internal protocol compatibility level that is supported by the receiving unit of the first wireless station, the receiving unit selects a version of the protocol to prepare a response message using the selected version of the protocol to encode the response message; clm. 17). Edge do not explicitly disclose the wireless protocol is a wireless security protocol. In the same field of endeavor, Reel disclose a communication system, e.g. in a mobile station or network device, that communicate over a variety of different network protocols, e.g. Ethernet and Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) or WPA (¶ [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to configure the wireless station to communicate using an alternative protocol to send data over the air or over the internet securely, i.e. with data encryption, for more data privacy and access control purposes.
Regarding claim 6, Edge and Greel disclose the method as in claim 1, wherein the second protocol information indicates identities of multiple wireless security protocols supported by the second wireless station, the identities of the multiple wireless security protocols indicating a first wireless security protocol and a second wireless security protocol (the second protocol information including a version of a protocol used to encode the message and a compatibility level associated with inter-operable protocol versions supported by the second wireless station that sent the message, wherein the message is selected from a group consisting essentially of a LTE Positioning Protocol (LPP) Protocol Data Unit (PDU) and an LPP Extensions (LPPe) PDU, and the version of the protocol comprises a major version number and a minor version number; Edge, col. 22, lines 56-60, claims 18-19; the security protocol is a wireless security protocol, Greel, ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 7, Edge and Greel disclose the method as in claim 6, wherein the first wireless security protocol level corresponds to a first level in a tiered hierarchy of multiple wireless security protocols; and wherein the second wireless security protocol level corresponds to a second level in the tiered hierarchy of multiple wireless security protocols, the second level ranking higher than the first level (the supported version of the protocol that is internal to receiver of the first wireless station is lower than the second version in the tiered hierarchy of the protocol included in the message that was received from the second wireless station; Edge, claim 22; Greel, ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 8, Edge and Greel disclose the method as in claim 1, wherein the selected wireless security protocol is a first wireless security protocol corresponding to the first wireless security protocol level (the supported version of the protocol of the first wireless station is selected to be used in the subsequently transmitted messages; Edge, clm. 22; Greel,
¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 9, Edge and Greel disclose the method as in claim 1, wherein the selected wireless security protocol is a second wireless security protocol specified by the second protocol information (the version of the second protocol included in the message is selected to be used in the subsequent transmitted message; Edge, clm. 21; Greel,
¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 11, Edge and Greel disclose the method as in claim 1, further comprising: transmitting the notification from the first wireless station to the second wireless station in response to detecting that the second wireless security protocol level supported by the second wireless station is different than the first wireless security protocol level supported by the first wireless station (the receiving unit compares the compatibility level included in the message that was received to an internal compatibility level (block 1214) and prepares response message with a message segment including the internal compatibility level (block 1216), the receiving unit transmits the response message with the message segment including the internal compatibility level (block 1218), e.g., the compatibility level included in the message that was received may be different than the internal compatibility level; Edge; col 23, lines 1-9; Greel,
¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 12, Edge and Greel disclose the method as in claim 1, wherein selecting the wireless security protocol includes: in response to detecting that the second wireless station supports the first wireless security protocol level, establishing a wireless communication link between the first wireless station and the second wireless station using a first wireless security protocol as indicated by the first wireless security protocol level (Edge; col 16, lines 43-62; Greel, ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 30, Edge and Greel disclose the method as in claim 1 further comprising: transmitting the notification from the first wireless station to the second wireless station in response to the first wireless station detecting that the first wireless security protocol level is different than the second wireless security protocol level (the receiving unit compares the compatibility level included in the message that was received to an internal compatibility level at block 1214 and prepares response message with a message segment including the internal compatibility level at block 1216, the receiving unit transmits the response message with the message segment including the internal compatibility level at block 1218, e.g., the compatibility level included in the message that was received may be different than the internal compatibility level; Edge; col 23, lines 1-9; Greel, ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 31, Edge and Greel disclose the method as in claim 1, wherein the comparison indicates that the second wireless security protocol level ranks higher in a hierarchy than the first wireless security protocol level (the supported version of the protocol that is internal to receiver of the first wireless station is lower than the second version in the tiered hierarchy of the protocol included in the message that was received from the second wireless station; Edge, claim 22; Greel, ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 32, Edge and Greel disclose the method as in claim 31 further comprising: transmitting the notification from the first wireless station to the second wireless station in response to the first wireless station detecting that the second wireless security protocol level ranks higher in the hierarchy than the first wireless security protocol level (the supported version of the protocol is lower than the version of the protocol included in the message that was received and the supported version of the protocol is selected to be used in the subsequently transmitted messages Edge; clm. 22; Greel, ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 33, Edge and Greel disclose the method as in claim 32, wherein the selected wireless security protocol corresponds to the first wireless security protocol level, the method further comprising: establishing wireless connectivity between the first wireless station and the second wireless station using the first wireless security protocol (Edge; clm. 22; Greel, ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 34, Edge and Greel disclose the method as in claim 1, wherein the comparison indicates that the first wireless security protocol level ranks higher in the hierarchy than the second wireless security protocol level (Edge; clm. 20; Greel, ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 35, Edge and Greel disclose the method as in claim 34 further comprising: transmitting the notification from the first wireless station to the second wireless station in response to the first wireless station detecting that the first wireless security protocol level ranks higher in the hierarchy than the second wireless security protocol level (Edge; clm. 21; Greel, ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 36, Edge and Greel disclose the method as in claim 35, wherein the selected wireless security protocol corresponds to the first wireless security protocol level, the method further comprising: establishing wireless connectivity between the first wireless station of the second wireless station using the first wireless security protocol level (Edge; clm. 21; Greel, ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 37, Edge and Greel disclose the method as in claim 1, wherein both the first wireless security protocol level and the second wireless security protocol level are ranked in a tiered hierarchy of wireless security protocol levels, the second wireless security protocol level different than the first wireless security protocol level (Edge; clm. 20-21; col 23, lines 1-9; Greel, ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 38, Edge and Greel disclose the method as in claim 1, wherein both the first wireless security protocol level as indicated by the first protocol information and the second wireless security protocol level as indicated by the second protocol information correspond to a same wireless security protocol level in a hierarchy of multiple wireless security protocol levels (the compatibility level included in the message that was received is the same as the internal compatibility level, Edge clm. 17; Greel, ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 39, Edge and Greel disclose the method as in claim 1, wherein the first wireless security protocol level corresponds to a first wireless security protocol; wherein the second wireless security protocol level corresponds to the first wireless security protocol; and wherein the selected wireless security protocol is the first wireless security protocol (Edge, clms. 17, 22; Greel, ¶ [0037]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge et al (US 9,398,442) in view of Greel et al (US 2008/0,013,463) further in view of Zhu et al (US 2019/0,349,758; hereinafter Zhu).
Regarding claim 2, Edge and Greel disclose the method and system as in claim 1, wherein Edge and Greel do not disclose the notification is a probe request transmitted by the first wireless station to learn of an identity of a wireless network supported by the second wireless station. In the same field of endeavor, Zhu disclose the notification is a probe request transmitted by the first wireless station to learn an identity of a wireless network supported by the second wireless station (paragraphs [0048], [0100], [0017]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order for the first device to acquire the service set identifier or network id of second device for e.g. authentication purpose.
Regarding claim 3, Edge, Greel and Zhu disclose the method as in claim 2, wherein the selected wireless protocol is the first wireless protocol (the supported version of the protocol, i.e. the internal version of the protocol of the receiving unit of the first wireless apparatus, is selected to be used in the subsequent transmitted message, Edge, claim 20), the method further comprising: in response to selection of the first wireless security protocol, establishing a respective wireless communication link between the first wireless station and the second wireless station using the selected first wireless security protocol (preparing a response message using the selected version of the protocol to encode the response message, and causing the transmitter to wirelessly transmit the response message; Edge; clm. 17), wherein the protocol is a wireless security protocol, Greel, ¶ [0037]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge et al (US 9,398,442) in view of Greel et al (US 2008/0,013,463) further in view of Montemurro et al (US 2025/0,358,872; hereinafter Montemurro).
Regarding claim 10, Edge and Greel disclose the method as in claim 1, wherein they do not disclose the second protocol information is received by the first wireless station in a beacon frame transmitted from the second wireless station, the beacon frame indicating at least one wireless security protocol supported by the second wireless station. In the same field of endeavor, Montemurro disclose the second protocol information is received by the first wireless station in a beacon frame transmitted from the second wireless station, the beacon frame indicating at least one wireless security protocol supported by the second wireless station (paras. [0081]-[0088]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to provide information, e.g. in a WSC IE format which encodes information as attributes in a binary type identifier, length and value format that specifies that the second station supports the WPS provisioning protocol and the Wi-Fi Easy Connect provisioning protocol to connect the first device to the second station.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 4-5 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.
Regarding claim 4, Edge and Greel disclose the method as in claim 1, wherein the first wireless security protocol level corresponds to a first wireless protocol, and wherein the second wireless security protocol level corresponds to protocol information indicates a second wireless security protocol different than the first wireless security protocol (first wireless protocol level corresponds to a first supported version of wireless protocol, wherein the supported version of the protocol is higher than the version of the protocol included in the message that was received; Edge, claims 20, 22; Greel, ¶ [0037]). However, the cited prior art fails to further disclose or fairly suggest: the method further comprising: receiving the second protocol information from the second wireless station in response to the first wireless station transmitting a message to the second wireless station.
Regarding claim 5, Edge and Greel disclose the method as in claim 4, wherein the selected wireless security protocol is the second wireless security protocol, the method further comprising: in response to selection of the second wireless security protocol, establishing a respective wireless communication link between the first wireless station and the second wireless station using the second wireless security protocol.
4. Claims 14-15, 18-20, and 23-27 are allowed.
Regarding independent claim 14 and 15, Edge et al (US 9,398,442) disclose a method at a first wireless station and a system comprising: communication management hardware operative to: retrieving first protocol information assigned to the first wireless station, the first protocol information indicating a first wireless protocol supported by the first wireless station; transmitting a notification from the first wireless station to a second wireless station, the notification indicating the first wireless protocol supported by the first wireless station; and selecting a wireless security protocol in which to communicate with the second wireless station based on the first protocol information and second protocol information, the second protocol information received from the second wireless station; wherein the second wireless station is operative to transmit first beacons indicating that the second wireless station supports the first wireless protocol; wherein the second wireless station is operative to transmit second beacons indicating that the second wireless station supports a second wireless protocol, the second wireless security protocol different than the first wireless protocol (Fig. 13, col 22, line 56 – col 23, line 5). Greel et al disclose a wireless security protocol (¶ [0037).
Montemurro et al (US 2025/0,358,872) disclose the wireless device receives a beacon frame from the second station (AP) indicating at least one wireless security protocol, e.g. Wi-Fi easy connect provisioning protocol, supported by the access point, paragraphs [0081]-[0088]).
However, the cited prior art fails to further disclose or fairly suggest:
the second wireless station is operative to transmit first beacons indicating that the second wireless station supports the first wireless security protocol; the second wireless station is operative to transmit second beacons indicating that the second wireless station supports a second wireless security protocol, the second wireless security protocol different than the first wireless security protocol; and wherein a ratio of the first beacons with respect to the second beacons transmitted by the second wireless station is based upon a number of first communication devices wirelessly connected to the second wireless station via the first wireless security protocol versus a number of second communication devices wirelessly connected to the second wireless station via the second wireless security protocol.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- Feng et al (US 20250343722) disclose a method for facilitating enhanced link adaptation in wireless systems extremely high throughput, involves receiving physical layer protocol data unit from requesting device, and transmitting feedback message from responding device to requesting device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LANA N LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/LANA N LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights