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 Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment submitted on July 31, 2026.
Claims 61-80 are now currently pending in the present application.
Claim Objections
Claim 61 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 61 requires an objection as there is a typo. Claim limitation “or providing a reputation service” rather than “for providing a reputation service.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 61-80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claims 61, 75, 78:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 61, Yes, the claim is to a process.
For claim 75, Yes, the claim is to a manufacture.
For claim 78, Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “crowd-sourcing... reputation data comprise... records... geographic location... rating... receiving... device geolocation... supplying... records…” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitations “One or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored thereon executable instructions”, “a hardware platform comprising a processor circuit and a memory; and instructions encoded within the memory”, and “wherein at least one of the one or more WAP records includes a certification status indicating that the WAP has been certified by a certification server of the reputation service based on verification, by the certification server, of a security configuration for the WAP” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “One or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored thereon executable instructions”, “a hardware platform comprising a processor circuit and a memory; and instructions encoded within the memory”, and “wherein at least one of the one or more WAP records includes a certification status indicating that the WAP has been certified by a certification server of the reputation service based on verification, by the certification server, of a security configuration for the WAP” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As to claim 62, 76, and 79:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 62, Yes, the claim is to a process.
For claim 76, Yes, the claim is to a manufacture.
For claim 79, Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “authenticating the end user device as belonging to a service subscriber” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “authenticating the end user device as belonging to a service subscriber” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “authenticating the end user device as belonging to a service subscriber” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
As to claim 63:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “the records further comprise connection type…” is a continuation of the “crowd-sourcing... reputation data comprise... records... geographic location... rating... receiving... device geolocation... supplying... records…” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claim 64:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “the records further comprise bandwidth…” is a continuation of the “crowd-sourcing... reputation data comprise... records... geographic location... rating... receiving... device geolocation... supplying... records…” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claim 65:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “the records further comprise connection security type…” is a continuation of the “crowd-sourcing... reputation data comprise... records... geographic location... rating... receiving... device geolocation... supplying... records…” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claim 66:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “the records further comprise pricing data…” is a continuation of the “crowd-sourcing... reputation data comprise... records... geographic location... rating... receiving... device geolocation... supplying... records…” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claim 67:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “the records further comprise vendor data…” is a continuation of the “crowd-sourcing... reputation data comprise... records... geographic location... rating... receiving... device geolocation... supplying... records…” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claim 68:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “the records further comprise security certification data…” is a continuation of the “crowd-sourcing... reputation data comprise... records... geographic location... rating... receiving... device geolocation... supplying... records…” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claim 69:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “the records further comprise availability data…” is a continuation of the “crowd-sourcing... reputation data comprise... records... geographic location... rating... receiving... device geolocation... supplying... records…” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claim 70:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “the records further comprise reliability data…” is a continuation of the “crowd-sourcing... reputation data comprise... records... geographic location... rating... receiving... device geolocation... supplying... records…” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claim 71:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “providing… certification badge…” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “providing… certification badge…” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “providing… certification badge…” an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
As to claim 72:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “receiving… request for information… about a specific WAP… providing… record…” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “receiving… request for information… about a specific WAP… providing… record…” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “receiving…request for information… about a specific WAP… providing… record…” an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
As to claim 73:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “receiving…request… quick response (QR) code” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “receiving…request… quick response (QR) code” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “receiving…request… quick response (QR) code” an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
As to claim 74, 77, and 80:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 74, Yes, the claim is to a process.
For claim 77, Yes, the claim is to a manufacture.
For claim 80, Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “receiving… requesting… real-time reputation display… responsive to the request, providing… real-time reputation data… based on a… record …” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitations “One or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage media… instructions are further… receiving… requesting… real-time reputation display… responding… providing… real-time reputation data… records…” and “a hardware platform comprising a processor circuit and a memory; and instructions encoded within the memory“ are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “One or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage media… instructions are further… receiving… requesting… real-time reputation display… responding… providing… real-time reputation data records…” and “a hardware platform comprising a processor circuit and a memory; and instructions encoded within the memory“ is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 61, 75 and 78 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. After thorough review and consideration of applicants’ amendment and specification there appears not to have sufficient support specifically there is no “certification status” within the specifications. However, there is a status of security but not of certification “wherein at least one of the one or more WAP records includes a certification status indicating that the WAP has been certified by a certification server of the reputation service based on verification, by the certification server, of a security configuration for the WAP.” Also, the claims do indicate a “certification badge” but it does not appear to be the same as certification status because the claims do not link them together. In addition, speciation paragraph 0043 of the PGPUB discloses "certification badge", but not "certification status" and in paragraph 0045 of PGPUB discloses "certified security reputation", but not "certification status" and there is no evidence to support it being the same. Therefore, Examiner using the broadest reason of interpretation rejects claim 61, 75 and 78..
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 non-obviousness.
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 61-63, 65- 66, 68-72, 74-75, 77-78 and 80 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Chang et al. (US 8769130 B1, hereinafter Chang) in view of Jover Segura et al. (US 20130019298 A1, hereinafter Jover Segura).
Consider Claim 61 A computer-implemented method or providing a reputation service, comprising:
crowd-sourcing, from a plurality of end users, WiFi access point (WAP) reputation data for a plurality of WAPs, wherein the WAP reputation data comprise WAP records including an identifier for a WAP, a geographic location of the WAP, and a user-supplied rating for the WAP; (Column 2 line 42-47, the computer network interface 105 may comprise a wireless network adapter when the computer 100 is being used as a client or a wired network adapter when the computer 100 is being used as a server. The computer network interface 105 may be configured to allow the computer 100 to communicate over the Internet. Column 3 line 58-66, When a client computer is in a particular geographic location, the client computer may query the security server for access point information of access points in that location. The security server may provide the result of the query to the client computer, which then displays the result of the query over a geographical map of the client computer's current location; Col 6 Lines 1-6 “The security server computer 450 may comprise a server computer configured to receive access point security evaluations and to provide access point information. In one embodiment, the security server computer 450 is configured to receive security evaluations from power client computers 440 and access point information from other sources”).
receiving, from an end user device, a device geolocation; and (column 2 line 60-67, FIG. 2, the screen image includes a geographical map in the general vicinity where the client computer is physically located. Such a geographical map may be obtained using a global positioning system (GPS). The screen image shows where the client computer is currently located (see "You are here") and a message box 201 indicating access point information, such as the access point's geographic location).
supplying, to the end user device, one or more WAP records for one or more WAPs near the device geolocation; (Column 3 line 58-67, when a client computer is in a particular geographic location, the client computer may query the security server for access point information of access points in that location. The security server may provide the result of the query to the client computer, which then displays the result of the query over a geographical map of the client computer's current location. The displaying of the access point information over a geographic map advantageously allows the user of the client computer to readily select safe wireless access points in his general area).
Chang discloses the claim invention but fails to teach wherein at least one of the one or more WAP records includes a certification status indicating that the WAP has been certified by a certification server of the reputation service based on verification, by the certification server, of a security configuration for the WAP.
However, Jover Segura teaches wherein at least one of the one or more WAP records includes a certification status indicating that the WAP has been certified by a certification server of the reputation service based on verification, by the certification server, of a security configuration for the WAP (paragraph 0104, Jover Segura teaches when verifying that an access point is genuine and not a rogue or malicious access point the information server can also inform the wireless device of a security level for the selected access point. The security level will be stored in the MIIS, or information server, as an information element of that AP and the level of security will depend on the access point service provider security; if the information over the air is encrypted; and the type of encryption used. All the information elements stored in the MIIS will be available to users and/or service providers; Examiner notes that this limitation has no patentable weight as the limitation is not a required step in the method claim.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, to modify Claim 61 by incorporating/combining the teachings of Chang wireless communication system with a security server computer to receive access point information for computer network wireless access points with the radio interface with the method and system for authenticating an access point to a wireless device of Jover Segura. The motivation to do so would be to develop an expanded the wireless access point of the server computer providing the access point information to the client’s computer. In addition, a method of detecting intervention of rogue point of access in communication using global positioning system (GPS), WiFi, Bluetooth, 802.11 and 802.16 standards in wireless communication.
Consider Claim 62, Chang discloses the method of claim 61, further comprising, authenticating the end user device as belonging to a service subscriber. (Column 6 line 55-59, the network description includes the wireless standard, authentication (Open in the example of Table 2), and MAC address of the access point 421-1. The security server computer 450 may use information from the threats report to build and maintain the access point database 451).
Consider Claim 63, Chang discloses the method of claim 61, wherein the WAP records further comprise connection type of the WAP. (Column 3 line 45-47 & 61-64, the security information included in the message 201 and graphically illustrated in the screen image may be obtained by connecting to the access points for evaluation and scanning. The security server may provide the result of the query to the client computer, which then displays the result of the query over a geographical map of the client computer's current location; Column 3 line 25-35).
Consider Claim 65, Chang discloses the method of claim 61, wherein the WAP records further comprise connection security type of the WAP. (Column 3 line 4-6 & 45-47, the security information includes the security type indicating the network security protocol used. The security information included in the message 201 and graphically illustrated in the screen image may be obtained by connecting to the access points for evaluation and scanning).
Consider Claim 66, Chang discloses the method of claim 61, wherein the WAP records further comprise pricing data for the WAP. (Column 3 line 55-58, the computer performing the security evaluation of the access point may forward the result of the evaluation to a security server computer that maintains an access point database. Column 4 line 9-12, four clear stars may indicate that the access point has been evaluated for safety in the last week, while a single clear star may indicate that the access point has been evaluated more than a month ago. Absence of a graphical security score may indicate that the access point has not been evaluated; Column 3 lines 25-34 Free Access).
Consider Claim 68, Chang discloses the method of claim 61, wherein the WAP records further comprise security certification data for the WAP. (Column 3 line 14-21, the message 201 may include a graphical icon 203 representing a score of severity of the computer security threat or lack of threat. In the example of FIG. 2, the graphical icon 203 is a darkened star with an exclamation point to warn the user of the potential issue with the access point currently selected by the cursor 202. The graphical icon 203 may have other shapes or designs depending on the application; Column 3 lines 25-34).
Consider Claim 69, Chang discloses the method of claim 61, wherein the WAP records further comprise availability data for the WAP. (Column 3 line 17-20, with the information shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, a user of a client computer can make an informed decision as to which available access point to select to access the Internet).
Consider Claim 70, Chang discloses the method of claim 61, wherein the WAP records further comprise reliability data for the WAP. (Column 4 line 6-13, one to four clear stars indicate that the access point is relatively safe, with four stars indicating the highest level of safety. For example, four clear stars may indicate that the access point has been evaluated for safety in the last week, while a single clear star may indicate that the access point has been evaluated more than a month ago. Absence of a graphical security score may indicate that the access point has not been evaluated).
Consider Claim 71, Chang discloses the method of claim 61, further comprising providing a certification badge for the WAP. (Colum 3 line 17-21, FIG. 2, the graphical icon 203 is a darkened star with an exclamation point to warn the user of the potential issue with the access point currently selected by the cursor 202. The graphical icon 203 may have other shapes or designs depending on the application).
Consider Claim 72, Chang discloses the method of claim 61, further comprising receiving a request for information about a specific WAP, and providing a WAP record for the specific WAP. (Column 6 line 8-13, the access point database 451 may comprise a listing of access points 421 in particular geographic locations and associated access point information. The access point information may comprise network information and security information for particular access points 421).
Consider Claim 74, Chang discloses the method of claim 61, further comprising receiving, from a business, a request for a real-time reputation display, and responsive to the request, providing, to the business, real-time reputation data based on a WAP record for the business. (Column 3 line 45-55, the security information included in the message 201 and graphically illustrated in the screen image may be obtained by connecting to the access points for evaluation and scanning. For example, a computer with appropriate antivirus program may connect to an access point to perform a security evaluation of the access point, such as to monitor the behavior of the access point and analyze packets to and from the access point to determine if the access point poses a computer security threat. The computer may also include or access a listing of MAC addresses of access points known to pose computer security threats).
Consider Claim 75, Chang discloses one or more tangible, nontransitory computer-readable storage media having stored thereon executable instructions to provide a reputation service, the instructions to: (Column 2 line 48-53, FIG. 1, the main memory 108 includes software modules 110, which may be computer-readable program code running in a server computer or a client computer. The software modules 110 may be loaded from the data storage device 106 to the main memory 108 for execution by the processor 101).
crowd-source, from a plurality of end users, WiFi access point (WAP) reputation data for a plurality of WAPs, wherein the WAP reputation data comprise WAP records including an identifier for a WAP, a geographic location of the WAP, and a user- supplied rating for the WAP; (Column 2 line 42-47, the computer network interface 105 may comprise a wireless network adapter when the computer 100 is being used as a client or a wired network adapter when the computer 100 is being used as a server. The computer network interface 105 may be configured to allow the computer 100 to communicate over the Internet. Column 3 line 58-66, When a client computer is in a particular geographic location, the client computer may query the security server for access point information of access points in that location. The security server may provide the result of the query to the client computer, which then displays the result of the query over a geographical map of the client computer's current location).
receive, from an end user device, a device geolocation; and (column 2 line 60-67, FIG. 2, the screen image includes a geographical map in the general vicinity where the client computer is physically located. Such a geographical map may be obtained using a global positioning system (GPS). The screen image shows where the client computer is currently located (see "You are here") and a message box 201 indicating access point information, such as the access point's geographic location).
supply, to the end user device, one or more WAP records for one or more WAPs near the device geolocation. (Column 3 line 58-67, when a client computer is in a particular geographic location, the client computer may query the security server for access point information of access points in that location. The security server may provide the result of the query to the client computer, which then displays the result of the query over a geographical map of the client computer's current location. The displaying of the access point information over a geographic map advantageously allows the user of the client computer to readily select safe wireless access points in his general area).
Chang discloses the claim invention but fails to teach wherein at least one of the one or more WAP records includes a certification status indicating that the WAP has been certified by a certification server of the reputation service based on verification, by the certification server, of a security configuration for the WAP.
However, Jover Segura teaches wherein at least one of the one or more WAP records includes a certification status indicating that the WAP has been certified by a certification server of the reputation service based on verification, by the certification server, of a security configuration for the WAP (paragraph 0104, Jover Segura teaches when verifying that an access point is genuine and not a rogue or malicious access point the information server can also inform the wireless device of a security level for the selected access point. The security level will be stored in the MIIS, or information server, as an information element of that AP and the level of security will depend on the access point service provider security; if the information over the air is encrypted; and the type of encryption used. All the information elements stored in the MIIS will be available to users and/or service providers; Examiner notes that this limitation has no patentable weight as the limitations is outside the scope of the executable instructions stored in the storage media and the limitation is merely intended use).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, to modify Claim 75 by incorporating/combining the teachings of Chang wireless communication system with a security server computer to receive access point information for computer network wireless access points with the radio interface with the method and system for authenticating an access point to a wireless device of Jover Segura. The motivation to do so would be to develop an expanded the wireless access point of the server computer providing the access point information to the client’s computer. In addition, a method of detecting intervention of rogue point of access in communication using global positioning system (GPS), WiFi, Bluetooth, 802.11 and 802.16 standards in wireless communication.
Consider Claim 77, Chang discloses the one or more tangible, nontransitory computer-readable storage media of claim 75, wherein the instructions are further to receive, from a business, a request for a real-time reputation display, and responsive to the request, provide, to the business, real-time reputation data based on a WAP record for the business. (Column 3 line 45-55, the security information included in the message 201 and graphically illustrated in the screen image may be obtained by connecting to the access points for evaluation and scanning. For example, a computer with appropriate antivirus program may connect to an access point to perform a security evaluation of the access point, such as to monitor the behavior of the access point and analyze packets to and from the access point to determine if the access point poses a computer security threat. The computer may also include or access a listing of MAC addresses of access points known to pose computer security threats).
Consider Claim 78, Chang discloses a computing apparatus for providing a reputation service comprising:
a hardware platform comprising a processor circuit and a memory; and instructions encoded within the memory to instruct the processor circuit to: (Column 2 line 13-16, computer memory may be configured to include one or more components, which may be executed by a processor. Software components may be implemented in logic circuits).
crowd-source, from a plurality of end users, WiFi access point (WAP) reputation data for a plurality of WAPs, wherein the WAP reputation data comprise WAP records including an identifier for a WAP, a geographic location of the WAP, and a user-supplied rating for the WAP; (Column 2 line 42-47, the computer network interface 105 may comprise a wireless network adapter when the computer 100 is being used as a client or a wired network adapter when the computer 100 is being used as a server. The computer network interface 105 may be configured to allow the computer 100 to communicate over the Internet. Column 3 line 58-66, When a client computer is in a particular geographic location, the client computer may query the security server for access point information of access points in that location. The security server may provide the result of the query to the client computer, which then displays the result of the query over a geographical map of the client computer's current location).
receive, from an end user device, a device geolocation; and (column 2 line 60-67, FIG. 2, the screen image includes a geographical map in the general vicinity where the client computer is physically located. Such a geographical map may be obtained using a global positioning system (GPS). The screen image shows where the client computer is currently located (see "You are here") and a message box 201 indicating access point information, such as the access point's geographic location).
supply, to the end user device, one or more WAP records for one or more WAPs near the device geolocation. (Column 3 line 58-67, when a client computer is in a particular geographic location, the client computer may query the security server for access point information of access points in that location. The security server may provide the result of the query to the client computer, which then displays the result of the query over a geographical map of the client computer's current location. The displaying of the access point information over a geographic map advantageously allows the user of the client computer to readily select safe wireless access points in his general area).
Chang discloses the claim invention but fails to teach wherein at least one of the one or more WAP records includes a certification status indicating that the WAP has been certified by a certification server of the reputation service based on verification, by the certification server, of a security configuration for the WAP.
However, Jover Segura teaches wherein at least one of the one or more WAP records includes a certification status indicating that the WAP has been certified by a certification server of the reputation service based on verification, by the certification server, of a security configuration for the WAP (paragraph 0104, Jover Segura teaches when verifying that an access point is genuine and not a rogue or malicious access point the information server can also inform the wireless device of a security level for the selected access point. The security level will be stored in the MIIS, or information server, as an information element of that AP and the level of security will depend on the access point service provider security; if the information over the air is encrypted; and the type of encryption used. All the information elements stored in the MIIS will be available to users and/or service providers; Examiner notes that the limitation has no patentable weight as the limitation is outside of the scope of the apparatus receiving and is merely intended use. The appratus receives and supplies WAP record regardless of whether the WAP record has been certified.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, to modify Claim 78 by incorporating/combining the teachings of Chang wireless communication system with a security server computer to receive access point information for computer network wireless access points with the radio interface with the method and system for authenticating an access point to a wireless device of Jover Segura. The motivation to do so would be to develop an expanded the wireless access point of the server computer providing the access point information to the client’s computer. In addition, a method of detecting intervention of rogue point of access in communication using global positioning system (GPS), WiFi, Bluetooth, 802.11 and 802.16 standards in wireless communication.
Consider Claim 80, Chang discloses the computing apparatus of claim 78, wherein the instructions are further to receive, from a business, a request for a real-time reputation display, and responsive to the request, provide, to the business, real-time reputation data based on a WAP record for the business. (Column 3 line 45-55, the security information included in the message 201 and graphically illustrated in the screen image may be obtained by connecting to the access points for evaluation and scanning. For example, a computer with appropriate antivirus program may connect to an access point to perform a security evaluation of the access point, such as to monitor the behavior of the access point and analyze packets to and from the access point to determine if the access point poses a computer security threat. The computer may also include or access a listing of MAC addresses of access points known to pose computer security threats).
Claim 67 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Chang et al. (US 8769130 B1, hereinafter Chang) in view of Jover Segura et al. (US 20130019298 A1, hereinafter Jover Segura) in view of HELBERT et al. (US 20170215214 A1, hereinafter HELBERT).
Consider Claim 67, Chang in view of Jover Segura discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein the WAP records further comprise vendor data for the WAP.
However, HELBERT teaches wherein the WAP records further comprise vendor data for the WAP (paragraph 0014, In embodiments, each service record further comprises a service descriptor for describing the service to an end-user and wherein the control module is further configured to: broadcast beacon signals through the radio interface, wherein the beacon signals include a service advertisement for a or each service record of the directory of available services, wherein the service advertisement comprises the service identifier and the service descriptor found in the service record. Paragraph 0016, the beacon signal includes the service advertisement in a Vendor Specific field of the beacon signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, to modify Claim 67 by incorporating/combining the teachings of Chang wireless communication system with a security server computer to receive access point information for computer network wireless access points with the radio interface with the method and system for authenticating an access point to a wireless device of Jover Segura and a WLAN communication module service and a selection module configured to select a computer-implemented service to be accessed of HELBERT. The motivation to do so would be to develop an expanded the wireless access point by sending out broadcasting through a beacon signals with advertisement that includes the (i.e., vendor, pricing, Quality-of-Service requirement) in coverage area of the access point found in the service record. There by boosting the computer network connection of the wireless access points in a crowd-source area.
Claims 64, 73, 76 and 79 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Chang et al. (US 8769130 B1, hereinafter Chang) in view of Jover Segura et al. (US 20130019298 A1, hereinafter Jover Segura) in view of TARATINE et al. (US 20160140546 A1, hereinafter TARATINE).
Consider Claim 64, Chang in view of Jover Segura discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein the WAP records further comprise bandwidth of the WAP.
However, TARATINE teaches wherein the WAP records further comprise bandwidth of the WAP (paragraph 0035, the out of band channel may be configured by sending party 102, and may relate to a device associated with receiving user 106 that is not receiving user terminal 108. Once the user terminal corresponding to the determined identifier has been identified, the service provider entity 110 may further identify the pre-configured out of band communications channel for receiving user 106 on the basis of the details stored in memory).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, to modify Claim 64 by incorporating/combining the teachings of Chang wireless communication system with and a security server computer to receive access point information for computer network wireless access points with the radio interface with the method and system for authenticating an access point to a wireless device of Jover Segura and the authorization request is received in relation to processing of an electronic token of TARATINE. The motivation to do so would be to develop an expanded the wireless access point of the server computer providing the access point information to the client’s computer. Also to provide methods and apparatus for selecting computer network wireless access points to establish a confidence that the transacting user terminal is the designated user terminal in relation to the account that is selectively authorized on the basis of the result of the location query or challenge response.
Consider Claim 73, Chang in view of Jover Segura discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein receiving the request comprises receiving the request via a quick response (QR) code.
However, TARATINE teaches wherein receiving the request comprises receiving the request via a quick response (QR) code (paragraph 0028, receiving user terminal 108 conducts communications with transacting entity 112 through the respective display and recognition of an image displayed on the screen of receiving user terminal 108, such as a barcode or quick-response (QR) code.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, to modify Claim 73 by incorporating/combining the teachings of Chang wireless communication system with a security server computer to receive access point information for computer network wireless access points with the radio interface with the method and system for authenticating an access point to a wireless device of Jover Segura and the authorization request is received in relation to processing of an electronic token of TARATINE. The motivation to do so would be to develop an expanded the wireless access point of the server computer providing the access point information to the client’s computer. Also to provide methods and apparatus for selecting computer network wireless access points to establish a confidence that the transacting user terminal is the designated user terminal in relation to the account that is selectively authorized on the basis of the result of the location query or challenge response.
Consider Claim 76, Chang in view of Jover Segura discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein the instructions are further to authenticate the end user device as belonging to a service subscriber.
However, TARATINE teaches wherein the instructions are further to authenticate the end user device as belonging to a service subscriber (paragraph 0067, receiving an authorization request in relation to processing of a said electronic token, the authorization request comprising the electronic token or an identifier for the electronic token; determining, on the basis of the authorization request, an identifier for a user terminal associated with the electronic token and an account, wherein the user terminal is capable of conducting communications via a wireless communication network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, to modify Claim 76 by incorporating/combining the teachings of Chang wireless communication system with a security server computer to receive access point information for computer network wireless access points with the radio interface with the method and system for authenticating an access point to a wireless device of Jover Segura and the authorization request is received in relation to processing of an electronic token of TARATINE. The motivation to do so would be to develop an expanded the wireless access point of the server computer providing the access point information to the client’s computer. Also to provide methods and apparatus for selecting computer network wireless access points to establish a confidence that the transacting user terminal is the designated user terminal in relation to the account that is selectively authorized on the basis of the result of the location query or challenge response.
Consider Claim 79, Chang in view of Jover Segura discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein the instructions are further to authenticate the end user device as belonging to a service subscriber.
However, TARATINE teaches wherein the instructions are further to authenticate the end user device as belonging to a service subscriber (paragraph 0067, receiving an authorization request in relation to processing of a said electronic token, the authorization request comprising the electronic token or an identifier for the electronic token; determining, on the basis of the authorization request, an identifier for a user terminal associated with the electronic token and an account, wherein the user terminal is capable of conducting communications via a wireless communication network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, to modify Claim 79 by incorporating/combining the teachings of Chang wireless communication system with a security server computer to receive access point information for computer network wireless access points with the radio interface with the method and system for authenticating an access point to a wireless device of Jover Segura and the authorization request is received in relation to processing of an electronic token of TARATINE. The motivation to do so would be to develop an expanded the wireless access point of the server computer providing the access point information to the client’s computer. Also to provide methods and apparatus for selecting computer network wireless access points to establish a confidence that the transacting user terminal is the designated user terminal in relation to the account that is selectively authorized on the basis of the result of the location query or challenge response.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments/remarks made in an amendment filed July 31, 2026, with respect to independent claims 61, 75 and 78 have been fully considered.
With respect to Applicant remarks (page 6) Examiner rejects claims 61 - 80 under 35 USC § 101 as being drawn to non-statutory subject matter. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection, and expressly denies that the claims, as previously presented, recite an abstract idea. However, Applicant did not provide any argument. As a result, Examiners’ rejection under 35 USC § 101 still stands (see office action above).
In view of Applicants arguments (page 6 and 7) of the amended claims and upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection, necessitated by the amendments is made in view of newly cited reference Jover Segura as presented in this Office action. Applicant' s arguments with respect to claims are therefore moot."
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELE CAMILLE DOUGLAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30 am - 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, Jeanette J Parker can be reached at 571-270-3647. 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.
/MICHELE C DOUGLAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646
