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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “indicating, by an access point device, that at least one station device changes media access control (MAC) address information and identifier information of the at least one station device” is vague and indefinite as it is not understood which one occurs first the indication or the change, it is also not understood what element benefits/receives the indication. Furthermore, it is not clear which device conducts the change and the relationship between the wireless device and the at least one station device is not known.
Similar issue occurs in claims 12 and 20.
Claims 2-11 and 13-19 are rejected because they depend on rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 9-10 12, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al (US 2017/0012977). Hereinafter referred to as Li.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 20, Li discloses a wireless communication method, comprising: indicating, by an access point device, that at least one station device changes media access control (MAC) address information and identifier information of the at least one station device (see at least figure 3 element S203).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Li discloses a method wherein indicating, by the access point device, that the at least one station device changes the MAC address information and identifier information of the at least one station device, comprises: sending, by the access point device, a first frame to the at least one station device, wherein the first frame is used to indicate changing the MAC address information and identifier information of the at least one station device.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Li discloses a method wherein the first frame comprises first time information, and the first time information is used for determining a change time of the MAC address information and identifier information of the at least one station device (see at least paragraph [0073].
Regarding claims 9 and 17. Li discloses a method wherein the first frame is sent by the access point device based on a request of a station device (see at least paragraph [0090]).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Li discloses a method further comprising receiving, by the access point device, a second frame from the station device, wherein the second frame is used to request the access point device to change the MAC address information and identifier information of the at least one station device (see at least paragraphs [0120]-[0121]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Huang et al (US 2021/0367872). Hereinafter referred to as Huang.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Li discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception that the MAC address information after changed and identifier information after changed of a station device are determined by the access point device and the station device according to a preset rule. However, Huang, from the same filed of endeavor, teaches the MAC address information after changed and identifier information after changed of a station device are determined by the access point device and the station device according to a preset rule (see at least paragraph [0076]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention for the purpose of increasing system security and reducing elements fingerprints.
Claims 3-4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Huang and further in view of Rose et al
Regarding claims 3-4 and 14. Li in view of Huang discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of that the MAC address information after changed of the station device is determined based on at least one of following information MAC address information before/after changed of the station device, or identifier information before changed of the station device. However, Rose, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the MAC address information after changed of the station device is determined based on at least one of following information MAC address information before/after changed of the station device, or identifier information before changed of the station device (see at least paragraphs [0029] and [0035]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Rose, as indicated, into the communication method of Li in view of Huang for the purpose of preventing location tracking via MAC addresses.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Yoshimi (US 2019/0342163) and further in view of Lowe (US 2024/0054460).
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses all the limitations of the clamed invention with the exception that the first frame comprises derivation number information, and the derivation number information represents a number of derivations performed by the station device to determine MAC address information after changed and identifier information after changed. However, Yoshimi, from the same field of endeavor, teaches derivation number information represents a number of derivations performed by the station device to determine MAC address information after changed and identifier information after changed (see at least paragraphs [0063] and [0073]) and Lowe, from the same field of endeavor, teaches transmission of the derivation number information (see at least paragraph [0002]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Yoshimi and Lowe, as indicated, into the communication method of Li for the purpose of increasing network security.
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses all the limitations of the clamed invention with the exception that the first frame comprises an identifier change element, and the identifier change element is used for indicating information of changing MAC address information and identifier information corresponding to one or more multicast groups. However, Yoshimi, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the identifier change element is used for indicating information of changing MAC address information and identifier information corresponding to one or more multicast groups (see at least paragraphs [0063] and [0073]) and Lowe, from the same field of endeavor, teaches transmission of an identifier change element (see at least paragraph [0002]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Yoshimi and Lowe, as indicated, into the communication method of Li for the purpose of increasing network security.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Mccann et al (US 2022/0386109). Hereinafter referred to as Mccann.
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Li discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of the second frame comprises time information of changing MAC address information and identifier information by the station device. However, Mccann, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the second frame comprises time information of changing MAC address information and identifier information by the station device (see at least paragraphs [0006] and [0048]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Mccann, as indicated, into the communication method of Li for the purpose of maintaining a level of security across a network.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights