yDETAILED 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Claims 19-38 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 19-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,973,679 in view of Choi et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0195500) in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0285834).
Current Application
U.S. Patent No. 11,973,679
Claim 19
Claim 1
A device, the device comprising processing circuitry coupled to storage, the processing circuitry configured to:
generate a first subset of fields for a probe request frame, wherein the first subset includes at least a service set identifier (SSID) element;
generate a second subset of fields for the probe request frame, the second subset being optional and comprising one or more of a request element, an extended request element, a fast initial link setup (FILS) request parameter element, a short SSID list element, one or more vendor specific elements, and a known BSSID element;
generate the probe request frame comprising the first subset and the second subset; and
cause to send the probe request frame to an access point (AP),
A device, the device comprising processing circuitry coupled to storage, the processing circuitry configured to:
generate a first subset of a plurality of fields, wherein the first subset is mandatory in a probe request frame;
generate a second subset of the plurality of fields, wherein the second subset is optional in the probe request frame regardless of capability information of the device, wherein the second subset is comprised of, a request element, an extended request element, a fast initial link setup (FILS) request parameter element, a short SSID list element, one or more vendor specific elements, a probe request variant multiple links (ML) element, and a known BSSID element;
generate the probe request frame comprising the first subset and the second subset; and
cause to send the probe request frame to an access point (AP) device.
U.S. Patent No. 11,973,679 does not explicitly disclose wherein the probe request frame is processible by the AP when one or more optional fields are omitted.
However, Choi’s figure 14 and paragraphs 287 and 332 teach an option field contains associated elements (MAC address, serial number, manufacture name, etc.). Since field 1440 is optional, there is a scenario where there is no elements or only a few elements in field 1440, and the AP still processes the probe request frame request based on the first required/mandatory subset of fields.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Choi the probe request frame indicates to the AP to process the probe request frame even if one or more optional fields are omitted.
The motivation would have been to process a frame based on the mandatory/required fields.
U.S. Patent No. 11,973,679 and Choi do not teach determine a medium access control (MAC) privacy is activated for enhanced data privacy and one or more fields are omitted based on a privacy configuration of the device.
In the same field of wireless LAN, Lee discloses determine a medium access control (MAC) privacy is activated for enhanced data privacy (paragraphs 125-128: STA MAC privacy component determines MAC privacy is activated for frame transmission) and one or more fields are omitted based on a privacy configuration of the device (paragraph 131 in view of paragraph 11: STA MAC address update component of a station protect the privacy of a source and destination address by removing them from a plain-text (MAC header [0011]) of a data frame).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in U.S. Patent No. 11,973,679 and Choi determine a medium access control (MAC) privacy is activated for enhanced data privacy and one or more fields are omitted based on a privacy configuration of the device.
The motivation would have been for privacy protection (abstract).
Claims 27 and 35 are rejected over US Pat ‘969’s claims 11 and 18.
Claims 20, 21, 28, 29, 36 and 37 are rejected over US Pat ‘969, Choi, and Lee.
Claims 22, 30, 38 are rejected over US Pat ‘969, Choi, and Lee, and IEEE 802.11aq.
Claims 23 and 31 are rejected over US Pat ‘969’s claims 3.
Claims 24 and 32 are rejected over US Pat ‘969’s claims 8.
Claims 25 and 33 are rejected over US Pat ‘969’s claims 4.
Claims 26 and 34 are rejected over US Pat ‘969’s claims 5.
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.
Claim(s) 19-21, 27-29, and 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0195500) in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0285834).
Regarding claims 19, 27, and 35, Choi discloses a device (figure 1 UE, figure 11 first external device) a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions (paragraph 226) which when executed by one or more processors result in performing operations a method, the device comprising processing circuitry coupled to storage (paragraph 226), the processing circuitry configured to:
generate a first subset of fields for a probe request frame, wherein the first subset includes at least a service set identifier (SSID) element (see figure 14 element 1430; paragraphs 287, 332: fields 1430 including SSID 1434 of probe request frame 1400)
generate a second subset fields, the second subset being optional and comprising one of a vendor specific element (see figure 14 element 1440; paragraphs 287, 332: option fields 1440 including at least MAC address information, serial number, manufacture name, a model name, etc.);
generate the probe request frame comprising the first subset and the second subset (figure 14 and paragraphs 284-288); and
cause to send the probe request frame to an access point (AP) device (figure 15 steps 1510 and 1520; paragraphs 6, 230, 289-293: probe request frame with SSID is transmitted to an AP).
Choi does not explicitly disclose wherein the probe request frame is processible by the AP when one or more optional fields are omitted.
However, Choi’s figure 14 and paragraphs 287 and 332 teach an option field contains associated elements (MAC address, serial number, manufacture name, etc.). Since field 1440 is optional, there is a scenario where there is no elements or only a few elements in field 1440, and the AP still processes the probe request frame request based on the first required/mandatory subset of fields).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Choi wherein the probe request frame is processible by the AP when one or more optional fields are omitted.
The motivation would have been to process a frame based on the mandatory/required fields.
Choi’s paragraph 287 discloses MAC address information is in one of the optional fields.
Choi does not teach determine a medium access control (MAC) privacy is activated for enhanced data privacy and one or more fields are omitted based on a privacy configuration of the device.
In the same field of wireless LAN, Lee discloses determine a medium access control (MAC) privacy is activated for enhanced data privacy (paragraphs 125-128: STA MAC privacy component determines MAC privacy is activated for frame transmission) and one or more fields are omitted based on a privacy configuration of the device (paragraph 131 in view of paragraph 11: STA MAC address update component of a station protect the privacy of a source and destination address by removing them from a plain-text (MAC header [0011]) of a data frame).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Choi determine a medium access control (MAC) privacy is activated for enhanced data privacy and one or more fields are omitted based on a privacy configuration of the device.
The motivation would have been for privacy protection (abstract).
Regarding claims 20, 28, and 36, all limitations of claims 19, 27, and 35 are disclosed above. Choi further teaches to process the probe request comprises a criteria for sending a response (paragraph 234).
Regarding claims 21, 29, and 37, all limitations of claims 19, 27, and 35 are disclosed above. Choi further teaches to identify a probe response frame from the AP (figure 13 element 1310; paragraph 232).
Claim(s) 22, 30, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0195500) in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0285834) in view of IEEE 802.11aq-2018, IEEE standard for Information Technology – Local and metropolitan area network – Part 11: Wireless LAN MAC and PHY Specification, hereinafter IEEE 802.11aq.
Regarding claims 22, 30, and 38, all limitations of claims 19, 27 and 35 are disclosed above. Choi and Lee do not teach but IEEE 802.11aq discloses the MAC privacy is dotl1MACPrivacyActivated that is set to true to indicate enabling enhanced privacy (section 12.2.10 first sentence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to Choi and Lee the MAC privacy is dotl1MACPrivacyActivated that is set to true to indicate enabling enhanced privacy.
The motivation would have been to follow a standard.
Claim(s) 23, 25, 31, 33, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0195500) in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0285834) in view of Kneckt et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0167256) with provisional 63/116,649 cited in parallel.
Regarding claims 23 and 31, all limitations of claims 19 and 27 are disclosed above. Choi and Lee do not teach but Kneckt discloses the device is a first STA that is affiliated with a non-AP multi-link device (MLD) (see figures 6B, 6C, and 9; paragraphs 135 and 136. Provisional 63/16,649’s figures 6B, 6C, and 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute a known element (multi-link device) in Kneckt for another device in Choi and Lee with predictable result of network communication.
Regarding claims 25 and 33, all limitations of claims 23 and 31 are disclosed above. Choi and Lee do not teach but Kneckt discloses the processing circuitry is further configured to: maintain an MLD address of the non-AP MLD; and randomize a medium access control (MAC) address of the first STA of the non-AP MLD (paragraphs 135-137; Provisional’s paragraphs 122-124: MLD MAC address is hidden/maintained while STA MAC address is randomized as disclosed in paragraph 137).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Choi and Lee the processing circuitry is further configured to: maintain an MLD address of the non-AP MLD; and randomize a medium access control (MAC) address of the first STA of the non-AP MLD.
The motivation would have been to make it more difficult for third party to detect wireless stations (paragraph 138).
Claim(s) 24 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0195500) in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0285834) in view of Kneckt et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0167256) in view of IEEE P802.11 Wireless LANs.
Regarding claims 24 and 32, all limitations of claims 23 and 31 are disclosed above. Choi, Lee, and Kneckt do not teach but IEEE P802.11 discloses to have the first STA of the non-AP MLD set a TXVECTOR parameter SCRAMBLER_RESET to RESET_SCRAMBLER on a next transmitted physical layer (PHY) protocol data unit (PPDU) (page 2 Proposed Resolution with Table 17.2.2.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Choi, Lee, and Kneckt to have the first STA of the non-AP MLD set a TXVECTOR parameter SCRAMBLER_RESET to RESET_SCRAMBLER on a next transmitted physical layer (PHY) protocol data unit (PPDU).
The motivation would have been to reset based on a parameter.
Claim(s) 26 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0195500) in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0285834) in view of Kneckt et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0167256) in view of McCann et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0386109).
Regarding claims 26 and 34, all limitations of claims 23 and 31 are disclosed above. Choi, Lee, and Kneckt do not teach but McCann discloses send a frame to an associated AP MLD, wherein the frame comprises an updated MAC address of the first STA; and receive a response frame from the associated AP MLD (paragraph 52: update MAC address of non-AP STA and respond with SUCCESS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Choi, Lee, and Kneckt send a frame to an associated AP MLD, wherein the frame comprises an updated MAC address of the first STA; and receive a response frame from the associated AP MLD.
The motivation would have been for privacy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In page 6 of Remark, regarding Double Patenting rejection, the Applicant traverses the rejection by amending the claims.
Examiner notes that the amendment is rejected by the combination of U.S. Patent No. 11,973,679, Choi, and Lee.
In pages 8-9 of Remark, regarding 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of independent claims, the Applicant argues that Choi does not teach field omitted based on a privacy configuration of the device.
Examiner notes that a newly discovered reference, Lee, teaches the claimed limitations. Thus, the argument is moot.
In pages 7-8 of Remark, the Applicant argues that “the basis of Choi’s AP to process the probe request when one or more optional fields are omitted is not a privacy configuration, but rather is based on information is optional or mandatory.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the claimed limitation does not state that the AP processes the probe request based on the privacy configuration of the device. Second, the specification does not have support for the AP processes the probe request based on the privacy configuration of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TITO Q PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM EST.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/TITO Q PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466