DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Porras et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0025265 (hereinafter Porras).
Regarding claim 1, Porras discloses a method (disclosed is a method for fingerprinting a wireless computing device, according to [0020], Fig. 1) comprising:
receiving, by at least one processor associated with a wireless communication network, a solicited wireless communication from an electronic device in response to a request, the solicited wireless communication being transmitted by the electronic device over a channel of the wireless communication network to an access point (a network security device [“at least one processor associated with a wireless communication network”] receives from a wireless device, in response to a request sent to said wireless device, a data link layer frame of an RF signal, according to [0020]-[0021], [0029], Fig. 1 [steps 104 and 110]);
extracting, by the at least one processor, channel characteristics from the solicited wireless communication, the channel characteristics being timing-dependent effects on the channel associated with the solicited wireless communication (the network extracts RF physical signal characteristics from the received data link layer frame, said characteristics including time-dependent quantities like jitter and phase noise, according to [0022]-[0023], Fig. 1 [step 106]);
generating, by the at least one processor, a device fingerprint based at least in part on the channel characteristics, the device fingerprint being specific to hardware of the electronic device (the network generates a fingerprint of the wireless device based on the extracted RF signal characteristics, according to [0030], Fig. 1 [step 112]); and
determining, by the at least one processor, an identification associated with the electronic device based at least in part on the device fingerprint matching a stored device profile representative of at least one pre-stored electronic device (the network stores the fingerprint so that the transmitting wireless device may be recognized as an authorized device during a subsequent attempt to access said network, according to [0035], Fig. 1 [step 114]).
Claim 10 recites the system, comprising at least one processor of a wireless communication network (the network comprises a device that comprises a fingerprinting device that comprises a processor, according to [0084]-[0085], Fig. 7 [element 702]), that performs the method recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Porras discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one pre-stored electronic device comprises a particular fingerprint of at least one previous electronic device that has been previously fingerprinted (an attempt to access the wireless network is checked against the previously fingerprinted wireless device, according to [0035]).
Regarding claim 3, Porras discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the identification is indicative of a particular device (the extracted RF characteristics include those that are unique to a particular device (such that a specific wireless device is recognized using its corresponding fingerprint, according to [0035]), according to [0022]-[0023], [0040]).
Regarding claim 4, Porras discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the identification is indicative of a particular type of device (the extracted RF characteristics include those that are unique to a particular model, according to [0022], [0024], [0040]).
Regarding claim 5, Porras discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the particular type of device comprises a particular device model (the extracted RF characteristics include those that are unique to a particular model, according to [0022], [0024], [0040]).
Regarding claim 7, Porras discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the request comprises an authentication challenge, and the response is derived from at least one pre-shared cryptographic secret (the network may require that the wireless device transmit a password for authentication, according to [0042]).
Regarding claim 9, Porras discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the access point comprises a Wi-Fi access point (the access point is an IEEE 802.11 access point, according to [0020]).
Claim 11 does not differ substantively from claim 2, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 12 does not differ substantively from claim 3, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 13 does not differ substantively from claim 4, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 14 does not differ substantively from claim 5, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claim 16 does not differ substantively from claim 7, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claim 18 does not differ substantively from claim 9, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porras in view of Gu et al., CN 114297615 A (hereinafter Gu).
Regarding claim 19, Porras discloses a method (disclosed is a method for fingerprinting a wireless computing device, according to [0020], Fig. 1) comprising:
receiving, by a Wi-Fi access point of a Wi-Fi network, a solicited wireless communication from an electronic device in response to a request, the solicited wireless communication being transmitted by the electronic device over a channel of the Wi-Fi network (an IEEE 802.11 wireless network access point receives from a wireless device, in response to a request sent to said wireless device, a data link layer frame of an RF signal, according to [0020]-[0021], [0029], Fig. 1 [steps 104 and 110]);
extracting, by the Wi-Fi access point, channel characteristics from the solicited wireless communication, the channel characteristics being timing-dependent effects on the channel associated with the solicited wireless communication (the network extracts RF physical signal characteristics from the received data link layer frame, said characteristics including time-dependent quantities like jitter and phase noise, according to [0022]-[0023], Fig. 1 [step 106]);
generating, by the Wi-Fi access point, a device fingerprint based at least in part on the channel characteristics, the device fingerprint being specific to hardware of the electronic device (the network generates a fingerprint of the wireless device based on the extracted RF signal characteristics, according to [0030], Fig. 1 [step 112]).
Porras does not expressly disclose communicating, by the Wi-Fi access point, the device fingerprint to a remote server, the remote server being configured to analyze the device fingerprint relative to a stored device profile; receiving, by the Wi-Fi access point, an indication of identification from the remote server in response to the device fingerprint, the identification being indicative of at least one of a device identity or a device type; and determining, by the Wi-Fi access point, an authentication associated with the electronic device based at least in part on the indication of identification.
Gu discloses communicating, by the Wi-Fi access point, the device fingerprint to a remote server, the remote server being configured to analyze the device fingerprint relative to a stored device profile (a WiFi access point (AP) sends, the radio frequency fingerprint for a wireless terminal (STA) that said AP extracted, to an authentication server (AS), whereby said AS compares this received radio frequency fingerprint to fingerprint in an existing legal device database, such that a fingerprint deviation between the current radio frequency fingerprint and the legal radio frequency fingerprint is calculated, according to page 5 lines 47-58, page 8 lines 5-26, page 9 line 56 to page 10 line 15);
receiving, by the Wi-Fi access point, an indication of identification from the remote server in response to the device fingerprint, the identification being indicative of at least one of a device identity or a device type (if the AS determines that the fingerprint deviation is less than a preset threshold value, then the STA is deemed to have successfully passed the fingerprint authentication process, such that the AP then continues the data link authentication for the STA [“the identification being indicative of at least one of a device identity”], whereby a WiFi network password is received by said AP from the user equipment, according to page 11 lines 6-26); and
determining, by the Wi-Fi access point, an authentication associated with the electronic device based at least in part on the indication of identification (after the successful completion of the fingerprint authentication process, the AP performs an acknowledgement after the user equipment provides a WiFi network password, according to page 11 lines 18-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Porras with Gu by communicating, by the Wi-Fi access point, the device fingerprint to a remote server, the remote server being configured to analyze the device fingerprint relative to a stored device profile; receiving, by the Wi-Fi access point, an indication of identification from the remote server in response to the device fingerprint, the identification being indicative of at least one of a device identity or a device type; and determining, by the Wi-Fi access point, an authentication associated with the electronic device based at least in part on the indication of identification.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent unauthorized access to a WiFi network that occurs via interception of the WiFi key (Gu: “Background” section).
9. Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porras as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, in view of Gu.
Regarding claim 6, Porras discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Porras does not expressly disclose communicating, by the at least one processor, the device fingerprint to a remote server, the remote server being configured to analyze the device fingerprint relative to the stored device profile; and receiving, by the at least one processor, an indication of the identification from the remote server in response to the device fingerprint.
Gu discloses communicating, by the at least one processor, the device fingerprint to a remote server, the remote server being configured to analyze the device fingerprint relative to the stored device profile (a WiFi access point (AP) sends, the radio frequency fingerprint for a wireless terminal (STA) that said AP extracted, to an authentication server (AS), whereby said AS compares this received radio frequency fingerprint to fingerprint in an existing legal device database, such that a fingerprint deviation between the current radio frequency fingerprint and the legal radio frequency fingerprint is calculated, according to page 5 lines 47-58, page 8 lines 5-26, page 9 line 56 to page 10 line 15); and
receiving, by the at least one processor, an indication of the identification from the remote server in response to the device fingerprint (if the AS determines that the fingerprint deviation is less than a preset threshold value, then the STA is deemed to have successfully passed the fingerprint authentication process, such that the AP then continues the data link authentication for the STA, whereby a WiFi network password is received by said AP from the user equipment, according to page 11 lines 6-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Porras with Gu by communicating, by the at least one processor, the device fingerprint to a remote server, the remote server being configured to analyze the device fingerprint relative to the stored device profile; and receiving, by the at least one processor, an indication of the identification from the remote server in response to the device fingerprint.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent unauthorized access to a WiFi network that occurs via interception of the WiFi key (Gu: “Background” section).
Claim 15 does not differ substantively from claim 6, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
10. Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porras as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, in view of Hirzallah et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0306022 (hereinafter Hirzallah).
Regarding claim 8, Porras discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Porras does not expressly disclose that the channel characteristics comprise at least one of: channel frequency response, or channel state information.
Hirzallah discloses that the channel characteristics comprise at least one of: channel frequency response, or channel state information (radio frequency fingerprinting is based on various measurements that include a channel frequency response (CFR) measurement, according to [0199]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Porras with Hirzallah such that the channel characteristics comprise at least one of: channel frequency response, or channel state information.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate positioning (Hirzallah: [0199]).
Claim 17 does not differ substantively from claim 8, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
11. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porras in view of Gu as applied to claim 19 above, further in view of Hirzallah.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Porras and Gu discloses all the limitations of claim 19.
Neither Porras nor Gu expressly discloses that the channel characteristics comprise at least one of: channel frequency response, or channel state information.
Hirzallah discloses that the channel characteristics comprise at least one of: channel frequency response, or channel state information (radio frequency fingerprinting is based on various measurements that include a channel frequency response (CFR) measurement, according to [0199]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Porras as modified by Gu with Hirzallah such that the channel characteristics comprise at least one of: channel frequency response, or channel state information.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate positioning (Hirzallah: [0199]).
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights