DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the communication filed on April 02, 2026 in response to the first office action on merit.
Remarks
Pending claims for reconsideration are claims 1-30. Applicant has
Amended claims 1, 5, 8, 10-11, 15-16, 20, 23, 25-26, and 30.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on April 02, 2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues in substance:
In response to argument- Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims filed on April 02, 2026 have been considered but they are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (see 103 rejection below).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patwardhan et al. (WO 2022/04 7180 Al / or “Patwardhan” hereinafter [provided by the applicant]) in view of Wu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2019/0281495 A1 / or “Wu” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Patwardhan discloses “A first access point (AP), comprising” (Para 0013: Multi-link devices (MLDs) i.e., Aps; and Fig. 4: MLD1402 a i.e., a “first access point”):
“a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code, the processing system configured to cause the first AP to” (Para 0076:MLDs with controller; and Fig. 8: Network Device 800 i.e., a MLD or AP with Processors 804, Main Memory 806; and Para 0075-0076):
“generate a first data packet for a first station (STA) at the first access point, wherein the first AP is designated as a central AP for the first STA within a wireless mesh network comprising a plurality of links” (Fig. 2: AP MLD 202 i.e., a “first access point”; and Para 0029: a message is forward by the AP MLD 202 using either Link or Link 2);
“and transmit the first data packet to the first STA via two or more links associated with one or more second APs of the wireless mesh network” (Fig. 2: Non-AP MLD 216 i.e., a “second AP”; and Para 0029: the Non-AP MLD 216 receives the message Fig. 6: and Para 0066, the message is forwarded to destination through multiple MLDs; and Para 18-20)
“such that the first data packet is [end-to-end] encrypted between the first AP and the first STA” (Fig. 6: Step 612 and Para 066, the message is encrypted)
Furthermore, Patwardhan discloses encryption and encapsulation of data between MLDs using multi-link tunnel (Para 0013, 0037, and Fig. 5. Also, Para 0018).
But Patwardhan fails to specially disclose end-to-end encryption and encapsulation of a first data packet in a second data packet of a respective link of the mesh network.
However, Wu discloses “and the first data packet is encapsulated within one or more second data packets, wherein each second data packet of the one or more data packets is associated with a respective link of the plurality of links of the wireless mesh network” (Wu, Fig. 2; and Para 0054 and 0071: a packet is forwarded by an intermediary node to the next hop after received the packet is received from an original node encrypted and encapsulated, where the intermediary nodes updates “…the MAC header of the data frame. Specifically, the second (intermediary) node updates the source MAC address in the MAC header to the MAC address of the second node, and the destination MAC address to the MAC address of the next-hop node” (Wu, Para 0113; and Para 0112)).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of end-to-end encryption and encapsulation of a first data packet in a second data packet of a respective link of the mesh network of Wu to the System of Patwardhan to have a data transmission system where the packet forwarding efficiency is improved and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to “…avoids consumption of resources and power caused by decompression (or decryption and decompression) hop by hop and then compression ( or compression and encryption) in the IPv6 packet forwarding process…” (Wu, Para 0116).
Regarding claim 2, in view of claim 1, Patwardhan discloses “wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to: assign the first data packet an end-to-end packet number” (Patwardhan, Para 0037: packet number),
“wherein the first data packet that is encapsulated within the one or more second data packets includes the end-to-end packet number” (Patwardhan, Para 0035-0036: encapsulated communication).
Regarding claim 3, in view of claim 1, Patwardhan discloses “wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to: assign a medium access control (MAC) service data unit (MSDU) associated with the first data packet an end-to-end sequence number, wherein the MSDU associated with the first data packet that is encapsulated within the one or more second data packets includes the end-to-end sequence number” (Patwardhan, Para 0015: MAC is used in data; and Para 0037; and Para 0073: MSDU is used).
Regarding claim 4, in view of claim 1, Patwardhan discloses “wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first AP to: generate a third data packet for a second STA at the first access point, the one or more second data packets including at least one aggregated medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (A-MPDU) including both the first data packet and the third data packet” (Patwardhan, Para 0073: MSDU is used).
Regarding claim 5, in view of claim 1, Patwardhan discloses “wherein each second data packet of the one or more second data packets associated with the respective link of the plurality of links of the wireless mesh network comprise a header that includes decryption information associated with the first data packet” (Patwardhan, Para 0069).
Regarding claim 6, in view of claim 1, Patwardhan discloses “wherein transmitting the first data packet to the first STA includes a medium access control (MAC) service data unit (MSDU) associated with the first data packet being end-to-end encrypted between the first AP and the first STA at a MAC service AP (MAC-SAP) of the first AP” (Patwardhan, Para 0029).
Regarding claim 7, in view of claim 6, Patwardhan discloses MAC service (Patwardhan, Para 0029) and
Wu discloses “wherein an internet protocol header portion of the first data packet is end-to-end encrypted based at least in part on the first data packet being end-to-end encrypted at the [MAC-SAP of the first AP]” (Wu, Fig. 2; and Para 0054 and 0071: end-to-end encryption of the data ).
Regarding claim 8, in view of claim 1, Patwardhan discloses “wherein the first data packet is encapsulated within a data portion of the one or more second packets” (Patwardhan, Para 0013, 0037, and Fig. 5. Also, Para 0018: the message are provided through tunnels i.e., encapsulated).
Regarding claim 9, in view of claim 1, Patwardhan in discloses “wherein the first AP is connected to a wireless area network (WAN) based at least in part on being the central AP within the wireless mesh network” (Patwardhan; and Fig. AP 106 connected to Client Device 110; and Para 0020: wireless network).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is directed to a station corresponding to the access point recited in claim 1. Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is directed to a station corresponding to the access point recited in claim 5. Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is directed to a station corresponding to the access point recited in claim 6. Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is directed to a station corresponding to the access point recited in claim 7. Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14, in view of claim 12, Patwardhan discloses “wherein the MSDU associated with the first data packet is assigned an end-to-end packet number, an end-to-end sequence number, or both” (Patwardhan, Para 0015: MAC is used in data; and Para 0037; and Para 0073: MSDU is used).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is directed to a station corresponding to the access point recited in claim 8. Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 8, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is directed to a method corresponding to the access point recited in claim 1. Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is directed to a method corresponding to the access point recited in claim 2. Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is directed to a method corresponding to the access point recited in claim 3. Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is directed to a method corresponding to the access point recited in claim 4. Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is directed to a method corresponding to the access point recited in claim 5. Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is directed to a method corresponding to the access point recited in claim 6. Claim 21 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is directed to a method corresponding to the access point recited in claim 7. Claim 22 is similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 is directed to a method corresponding to the access point recited in claim 8. Claim 23 is similar in scope to claim 8, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 is directed to a method corresponding to the access point recited in claim 9. Claim 24 is similar in scope to claim 9, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is directed to a method corresponding to the station recited in claim 10. Claim 25 is similar in scope to claim 10, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 is directed to a method corresponding to the access point recited in claim 5. Claim 26 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 is directed to a method corresponding to the access point recited in claim 6. Claim 27 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 is directed to a method corresponding to the access point recited in claim 7. Claim 28 is similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 is directed to a method corresponding to the station recited in claim 14. Claim 29 is similar in scope to claim 14, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 30, claim 30 is directed to a method corresponding to the station recited in claim 15. Claim 30 is similar in scope to claim 15, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Relevant Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sinha et al. (US 20080304485 A1) discloses “…In the case that the data is set up for DTLS encrypting of the packet, the process includes adding a DTLS header and encrypting the packet using end-to-end encryption for CAPWAP messages to the mesh AP 123 of the mesh network. Note that in alternate embodiments, wherein the root mesh AP includes fast data plane processing, the encryption may be carried out at the root AP. In the description herein, the controller 103 is assumed to carry out such data plane processing” (Para 0085).
Shanmugavadivel et al. (US 20150023155 A1) discloses:
[0020] However, the presence of L3 tunnels, even when not necessary, creates unnecessary overhead and loading since these tunnels need protection with IPsec for data integrity and encryption, which is processor intensive for a network operations center concentrator and the new root node. Therefore, in the present invention Layer 3 tunnels are set up or established dynamically, only when there is a need to do so. The present invention also provides for these tunnels to be torn down when no longer needed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH ALMAMUN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3392. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDULLAH ALMAMUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2431
/LYNN D FEILD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights