DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application filed on 07/30/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 07/30/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
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 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(a) 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10, 12, 14-17, and 18- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barton et al. (US 20240381263 A1), hereinafter “Barton”; and in further view of Montemurro et al. (US 20230262786 A1), hereinafter “Montemurro”.
Regarding claim 1, Barton teaches a method comprising:
obtaining a multi-link operation (MLO) policy for establishing a multi-link connection to a wireless network [Barton: Fig. 4; Par. 66- 81 teaches of receiving policy, and instructions for MLO operation in wireless network]; and
performing an MLO association for establishing the multi-link connection to the wireless network based on the MLO policy in which the MLO association is restricted to a single link [Barton: Fig. 4; Par. 66- 81 further teach of based on policy, restrict the applications that are not on MLO; Par. 95 further disclosed under policy, only activate a single operation]. during a web authentication for access to the wireless network.
PNG
media_image1.png
544
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Barton does not teach performing an MLO association during a web authentication for access to the wireless network.
Nevertheless, Montemurro, in the similar filed of endeavor, teaches performing an MLO association during a web authentication for access to the wireless network [Montemurro: Fig. 2; Par. 67 teaches of using server 218 may authenticate the non-AP STA 106 and retrieve policies for the non-AP STA 106 from the policy server 206 via a protocol such as Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) or other similar protocols. Then, the results of the authentication along with any policies may be passed back to the access network. When the authentication procedure is successful, the non-AP STA 106 establishes network connectivity, and the access network applies the network policy for the non-AP STA 106].
PNG
media_image2.png
504
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Montemurro to authentication. One in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Montemurro with a motivation to make this modification in order to provide priority access service defined by policy (Montemurro: Par. 75).
Regarding claim 3, the combined Barton in view of Montemurro teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Barton in view of Montemurro further teaches wherein the MLO association is restricted to the single link during the web authentication based on an authorization indicator in the MLO policy [Montemurro: Fig. 2; Par. 67].
Regarding claim 4, the combined Barton in view of Montemurro teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Barton in view of Montemurro further teaches establishing, by one or more of an access point multi-link device (AP MLD) or a wireless local access network controller, the single link for the web authentication by a non-AP MLD; and establishing at least one additional link for the non-AP MLD after the web authentication [Montemurro: Par. 67- 70].
Regarding claim 5, the combined Barton in view of Montemurro teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Barton in view of Montemurro further teaches generating an MLO authorization indicator that indicates that the web authentication is to be completed prior to establishing at least one additional link with the wireless network for a client station [Barton: Par. 36 teaches of using SSID and BSSID as identifying indicator]; and
adding the MLO authorization indicator to a guest basic service set identifier [Montemurro: Par. 35 teaches of authorizing user or device for service].
Regarding claim 6, the combined Barton in view of Montemurro teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 5. Barton in view of Montemurro further teaches providing, to the client station, one or more of: a beacon, a probe response, an association response, or a reassociation response, each of which includes the MLO authorization indicator [Montemurro: See Par. 67- 70 of providing authorization access].
Regarding claim 10, the combined Barton in view of Montemurro teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Barton in view of Montemurro further teaches determining a user type based on information from a wireless client device [Montemurro: Par. 35 teaches of authorizing user or device for service];
associating the MLO policy based on the user type; and
providing, to the wireless client device, an action frame that defines a number of additional links that are to be established after completing the web authentication [Barton: Fig. 2; Montemurro: Fig. 4 teaches of using different policy and authentication for priority access].
Regarding claim 12, Barton teaches An apparatus comprising:
a memory; a network interface configured to enable network communications; and a processor, wherein the processor is configured to perform a method comprising [Barton: Figs. 1-2]:
obtaining a multi-link operation (MLO) policy for establishing a multi-link connection to a wireless network [Barton: Fig. 4; Par. 66- 81 teaches of receiving policy, and instructions for MLO operation in wireless network]; and
performing an MLO association for establishing the multi-link connection to the wireless network based on the MLO policy in which the MLO association is restricted to a single link [Barton: Fig. 4; Par. 66- 81 further teach of based on policy, restrict the applications that are not on MLO; Par. 95 further disclosed under policy, only activate a single operation]. during a web authentication for access to the wireless network.
PNG
media_image1.png
544
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Barton does not teach performing an MLO association during a web authentication for access to the wireless network.
Nevertheless, Montemurro, in the similar filed of endeavor, teaches performing an MLO association during a web authentication for access to the wireless network [Montemurro: Fig. 2; Par. 67 teaches of using server 218 may authenticate the non-AP STA 106 and retrieve policies for the non-AP STA 106 from the policy server 206 via a protocol such as Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) or other similar protocols. Then, the results of the authentication along with any policies may be passed back to the access network. When the authentication procedure is successful, the non-AP STA 106 establishes network connectivity, and the access network applies the network policy for the non-AP STA 106].
PNG
media_image2.png
504
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Montemurro to authentication. One in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Montemurro with a motivation to make this modification in order to provide priority access service defined by policy (Montemurro: Par. 75).
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 3.
Claims 2, 7, 11, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barton et al. (US 20240381263 A1), hereinafter “Barton”; and in further view of Montemurro et al. (US 20230262786 A1), hereinafter “Montemurro”, and in further view of Kim et al. (US 20220174768 A1), hereinafter “Kim”.
Regarding claim 2, the combined Barton in view of Montemurro teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Barton in view of Montemurro further teaches wherein the single link is an onboarding MLO link [Montemurro: Fig. 2; Par. 67].
However, Barton in view of Montemurro does not teach the single link is an onboarding MLO link for the web authentication via a captive portal.
Nevertheless, Kim, in the similar filed of endeavor, teaches the single link is an onboarding MLO link for the web authentication via a captive portal [Kim: Par. 118 teaches A portal 220 may serve as a bridge which connects the wireless LAN network (i.e. EE 802.11) and another network (e.g., 802.X)].
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Kim to include portal to authentication in MLO operation. One in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Kim with a motivation to make this modification in order to provide communication for authentication (Kim: Par. 126).
Regarding claim 7, the combined Barton in view of Montemurro teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1.
However, Barton in view of Montemurro does not teach remediating a captive portal remediation page for a wireless client device during the web authentication.
Nevertheless, Kim, in the similar filed of endeavor, teaches remediating a captive portal remediation page for a wireless client device during the web authentication [Kim: Par. 118 teaches A portal 220 may serve as a bridge which connects the wireless LAN network (i.e. EE 802.11) and another network (e.g., 802.X)].
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Kim to include portal to authentication in MLO operation. One in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Kim with a motivation to make this modification in order to provide communication for authentication (Kim: Par. 126).
Regarding claim 11, the combined Barton in view of Montemurro teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1.
However, Barton in view of Montemurro does not teach wherein the wireless network is a wireless local access network and the web authentication is a Layer 3 security authentication.
Nevertheless, Kim, in the similar filed of endeavor, teaches wherein the wireless network is a wireless local access network and the web authentication is a Layer 3 security authentication. [Kim: Par. 118 teaches A portal 220 may serve as a bridge which connects the wireless LAN network (i.e. EE 802.11) and another network (e.g., 802.X)].
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Kim to include portal to authentication in MLO operation. One in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Kim with a motivation to make this modification in order to provide communication for authentication (Kim: Par. 126).
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter:
A full search was conducted and the features of the instant claims 8- 9 were not found to be in any reasonable combination of the closest prior art in combination of Barton in view of Montemurro.
With respect to exemplary, the prior arts in above teach of method and devices for MLO devices communication using policy and instructions to limit MLO operations and authenticate to provide priority network access for multi-link [Barton: Fig. 4; Montemurro: Fig. 2].
However, the combined Barton in view of Montemurro does not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitations in instant claims 8 and 9 reciting such as;
“remediating a captive portal during the web authentication by:
displaying, via a web browser of a wireless client device, content received from the captive portal;
obtaining user input related to authenticating a user associated with the wireless client device onto the wireless network via the captive portal;
providing the user input to the captive portal;
obtaining, from the captive portal, a response indicating one of:
access to the wireless network of the captive portal is granted, or
further input to obtain the access to the wireless network via the captive portal is to be provided; and
detecting a completion of a remediation with the captive portal; and
while remediating with the captive portal, establishing only the single link with the wireless network.”
Therefore, Claims 8 and 9 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter and allowed over the closest Prior Art references of Barton in view of Montemurro.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYAW Z SOE whose telephone number is (571)270-0304. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 5712707191. 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.
/KYAW Z SOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights