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 .
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are :configured to generate, assign in claim 12, see Applicant specification, paragraph 0048..
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9 , 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US2022/0232466) (hereinafter Chen) in view of Lee et al. (US20160295409) (hereinafter Lee).
Per claim 1, Chen discloses a wireless communication apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; one or more processors (paragraph 0130, i.e. processors and memory) configured to execute the instructions to randomly generate a media access control (MAC) address (paragraph 0106, i.e. the processor generates a virtual MAC address to replace a device MAC address in a Wi-Fi connection process. The virtual MAC address includes a random MAC address, a function MAC address, or the like. The random MAC address is generated by the processor, and a format of the random MAC address is XX-XX-XX-XX-XX-XX) and execute a connection procedure for establishing a connection to another wireless communication apparatus; and perform communication with the another wireless communication apparatus (paragraph 0200, i.e. the terminal automatically starts to establish a connection to the AP by using a device MAC address or a second random MAC address that corresponds to the AP and that is used to identify the terminal in the historical record. If there are a plurality of APs that have successfully established connections or the terminal automatically selects an AP with a largest quantity of connection establishment success times to start to establish a connection)
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions (paragraph 0130, the processor 110 runs the instructions stored in the internal memory 121 and/or the instructions stored in the memory disposed in the processor), to execute a 4-way-hand-shake procedure, as the connection procedure (paragraph 0185, I.e. A future network such as a WP&3 enhanced open network is the same as the open (OPEN) network. In a process of establishing a connection between the terminal and the AP, the scanning phase, the link authentication phase, and the association phase are performed, In addition, in the association phase, the terminal and the AP negotiate a connection key. The connection key is used for packet encryption of the four-way handshake and packet transmission encryption after the terminal accesses the AP. In the foregoing process, although the terminal and the AP negotiate a connection key, the user does not learn of the connection key) but fails to explicitly disclose the 4-way-hand-shake procedure using a device identifier assigned by the another wireless communication apparatus and being different from the MAC address, and execute a reconnection procedure for establishing a connection to the another wireless communication apparatus in a case where the device identifier is unrecognized by the another wireless communication apparatus in the 4-way-hand-shake procedure.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Lee discloses the 4-way-hand-shake procedure (paragraph 0043, 4-way-hand-shake procedure) using a device identifier assigned by the another wireless communication apparatus and being different from the MAC address (paragraph 0046 and 0061, i.e. , Further, the STA 114 may determine based on the RAIDs that the re-association object received from the AP 206 is associated with a different secret key. Accordingly, the STA 114 may choose to store the re-association object received from the AP 206. In other words, upon receiving a re-association object, the STA 114 retrieves the RAID of the newly received re-association object and checks the whether the retrieved RAID is the same as the RAID of a stored re-association object , examiner interprets that station 114 in Fig 2, reassociate from AP 104 to Ap 206, also see Fig 4, RA object details specific information such as the device ID, which is different form the MAC address) and execute a reconnection procedure for establishing a connection to the another wireless communication apparatus in a case where the device identifier is unrecognized by the another wireless communication apparatus in the 4-way-hand-shake procedure (paragraph 0082 and 0046, i.e. If the AP 104 has determined that the re-association object 212 is not valid, the AP 104 may construct a re-association response failure message including information indicating that the re-association operation has failed. The AP 104 may send the re-association response failure message without encryption. If the AP 104 has determined that the re-association object 212 is valid, the AP 104 may construct a re-association response success message, where examiner interprets that reassociating to AP 206 failed initially and through determining the RA object is valid, reassociating to AP206 is successful).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lee into the invention Chen, where Chen provides A method for accessing a wireless local area network (WLAN) includes a terminal receiving type information of the WLAN and identification information of the WLAN from an access point. The terminal determines a type of the WLAN based on the type information. The terminal sends, to the access point when the terminal determines that the type is a type I, a message requesting to access the WLAN. The message carries a virtual media access control (MAC) address and Lee provides The apparatus may be a STA. The STA sends, in a re-association procedure, a re-association object to a first AP to establish a first security association with the first AP. The re-association object is encrypted by using a first key unknown to the STA. The re-association object includes a second key derived from a second security association in a previous association procedure between the STA and a second AP in order to provide a better quality of service via fast authentication and association between other AP’s instead of existing caching-based solution, e.g., pairwise master key (PMK) caching, may not be effective or scalable due to a large number of simultaneous authentication/association requests and/or due to a large number of STA states that need to be kept at an AP, see Lee paragraphs 0006, 0008 and 0046 and 0082..
Per claim 2, refer to the same rationale as explained in claim 1, where Chen discloses (paragraph 0233, In an access process, if access still fails when a quantity of access times is equal to N (N is an integer), the processor invokes a device MAC address stored in an internal memory 121 to identify the terminal and Lee discloses utilizing specific information when reassociating to another AP including the device ID, paragraph 0046 and 0061).
Per claim 3, the combination discloses the wireless communication apparatus according to claim 2, wherein Chen discloses the one or more processors are further configured (paragraph 0130, i.e. processors) Lee discloses to execute the instructions to wait by using a timer (paragraph 0066, timestamp indicating the expiration time of the reassociating object 212), before repeatedly executing the 4-way-hand-shake procedure using the device identifier in a case where the device identifier is unrecognized by the another wireless communication apparatus (paragraph 0082 and 0046, i.e. If the AP 104 has determined that the re-association object 212 is not valid, the AP 104 may construct a re-association response failure message including information indicating that the re-association operation has failed. The AP 104 may send the re-association response failure message without encryption. If the AP 104 has determined that the re-association object 212 is valid, the AP 104 may construct a re-association response success message, where examiner interprets that reassociating to AP 206 failed initially and through determining the RA object is valid, reassociating to AP206 is successful).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lee into the invention Chen in order to provide a better quality of service via fast authentication and association between other AP’s where utilizing a timestamp and expiration time for reassociating instead of existing caching-based solution, e.g., pairwise master key (PMK) caching, may not be effective or scalable due to a large number of simultaneous authentication/association requests and/or due to a large number of STA states that need to be kept at an AP, see Lee paragraphs 0006, 0008 and 0046, 0066 and 0082.
Per claim 4, refer to the same rationale as explained in claim 1, see Chen paragraph 0185, connection procedure).
Per claim 5, the combination discloses the wireless communication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein Chen discloses the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to execute, as the reconnection procedure, the 4-way-hand-shake procedure using the device identifier, and transmit a message 2 including the device identifier to the another wireless communication apparatus.(paragraphs 0012 and 0186, the second message is used to request to access a second wireless local area network, the second message carries a second virtual MAC address, the second virtual MAC address is used to identify the terminal, the second virtual MAC address is different from the device MAC address of the terminal, and the second wireless local area network is provided by the second access point).
Per claim 6, the combination discloses the wireless communication apparatus according to claim 5, wherein Chen discloses the one or more processors( paragraph 0130), are further configured to execute the instructions to wait by using a timer, before executing the reconnection procedure(paragraph 0037, i.e. If a quantity of times for which the terminal requests to access the first wireless local area network is greater than or equal to N, the terminal determines that the terminal cannot access the first wireless local area network, where N is an integer. N is an integer such as 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7. Through a plurality of attempts, this avoids a case in which the first wireless local area network cannot be accessed).
Per claim 7, the combination discloses the wireless communication apparatus according to claim 6, wherein Chen discloses the one or more processors (paragraph 0130) are further configured to execute the instructions to repeatedly execute, as the reconnection procedure (paragraph 0037, the 4-way-hand-shake procedure using the device identifier, and set a value of the timer in a manner that the value of the timer gradually increases as a number of repetitions of the reconnection procedure increases (paragraph 0186, four way handshake and paragraph 0212, the terminal uses the second random MAC address as the device address to identify the terminal. If access still fails when a quantity of access times in an access process is equal to N (N is an integer), step S1001 is returned. N may be selected from 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or the like, and is set by a terminal vendor).
Per claim 9, refer to the same rationale as explained in claim 1.
Per claim 11, refer to the same rationale as explained in claim 1.
Per claim 12, refer to the same rationale as explained in claim 1, Applicant implemented terms first wireless communication apparatus and second communication apparatus instead of a wireless communication apparatus and another communication wireless apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 10 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: It’s interpreted, the prior art of record either singularly or in proper combination fails to teach transmit a message 2 not including the device identifier to the another wireless communication apparatus, and receive a message 3 including a new device identifier from the another wireless communication apparatus and transmit a message 2 including the device identifier, and determine that the device identifier is unrecognized by the another communicator in a case where the one or more processors receive a message 3 including information indicating that the device identifier is unrecognized by the another wireless communication apparatus
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH E DEAN, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7116. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-3:30.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at 571-270-0375. 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.
/JOSEPH E DEAN, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights