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 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.
Claim 14 and 16 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.
Claim 14 depends on claim 1, wherein claim 14 recites, in part:
“wherein generating the new value of the EUI for the next association is performed during disassociation between the non-AP station and the AP station”
However, claim 1 recites, in part:
“while being associated with an AP station, generating a new value of the EUI of the non-AP station”
The claim is unclear because it appears to contradict the parent wherein the parent claim requires that the generating is performed during association, while the child claims that the generating is done during disassociation.
Claim 16 recites, in part:
“wherein the last generated new value is generated when performing disassociation of the non-AP station from the AP station.”
Again, the claim 16 depends on claim 15, which depends on claim 1, which recites that the value is generated when the STA is associated.
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) 1-5, 8, 13-15, and 18-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mestanov et al. (US 2016/0302058 A1), in view of Ficara et al. (US 2023/0262465 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 18, and 19, the disclosure of Mestanov teaches:
a wireless communciation device comprising at least one microprocessor configured for carrying out a method, wherein the method steps are stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium;
the method comprising:
changing a value of an Extended Unique Identifier, EUI (par.[0001] discloses a MAC address, “A method and a first node, such as the wireless device, for updating a MAC address of the first node as well as a method and a second node, such as the wireless access node, for managing an update of a MAC address of the first node are disclosed.”), of a non-access point, non-AP, station (par.[0001] describes a Station (STA)/Wireless Device which is a non-access point non-AP, station), the method comprising at the non-AP station:
while being associated with an AP station (par.[0037] which describes establishing a connection between the STA-110 and the AP-120, par.[0040]), generating a new value of the EUI of the non-AP station by using an EUI generating function shared with the AP station (fig.3 at element 303 the STA sends a request to update/change its MAC address, at 304 the AP receives the request, and at 305 the AP generates an updated MAC for the STA to utilize. Additionally, the a first node, par.[0065] which is a STA, is capable of generating a new MAC address, and sending the new address to the AP, element 404-405 Par.[0130] “Hence, a WLAN STA may be able to change its MAC address to e.g. a seemingly random one in order to improve user privacy, while at the same time the WLAN itself can keep providing user context enabled functionality.”); and
using the new value of the EUI when next associating with the AP station (par.[0078] which recites, in part, “the request may in some examples indicate to the wireless access node that the current MAC address will be used when re-connecting, e.g. establishing a connection to the wireless access node after being disconnected therefrom, at a later stage”).
While the disclosure of Mestanov substantially discloses the claimed, subject matter, and in par.[0130] describes the station generating a “seemingly random” MAC address it does not explicitly disclose:
generating a new value of the EUI of the non-AP station by using an pseudorandom function.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Ficara teaches:
generating a new value of the EUI of the non-AP station by using an pseudorandom function (par.[0058] which recites, in part, “a network entity such as a client device, an AP, or a management device/service may generate the MAC address using a pseudo-random number generator (PRNG). For example, if the client device 320a generates the MAC address using a secure PRNG, the client device 320a may share the sequence (in a form of an equation or a seed value) with the network including the network device 350 and/or other client devices in the network.”).
As can be seen, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosures of Mestanov which teaches the use of seemingly random MAC address change, with the disclosure of Ficara which teaches use of switching the MAC address with pseudorandom address. The motivation/suggestion would have been to protect the user data transmission by modifying the MAC address of the station to prevent spoofing or other malicious attacks.
Regarding claim 2, Mestanov discloses:
determining whether the non-AP station locally stores an EUI value in association with the AP station, and in the affirmative, using the stored EUI value to associate with the AP station (par.[0103] describes the AP and STA negotiating and/or configuring a MAC which is usable at a later point in time, i.e. an updated MAC), otherwise using a default EUI value to associate with the AP station (par.[0103] and fig.5 describe prior to updating a MAC, the UE must authenticate using a default MAC or previously known MAC, par.[0012 – 0014, 0104 – 0109]).
Regarding claim 3, Mestanov discloses:
wherein the default EUI value is a random MAC address obtained through Randomized and Changing procedure (par.[0130] wherein the MAC addresses are random, and the AP/Network can create a correspondence between old/default MAC address and new/updated MAC address).
Regarding claim 4, Ficara discloses:
performing a further next association with the AP station using a value of the EUI of the non-AP station different from a value of the EUI generated using the psuedorandom function shared with the AP station (par.[0058] which recites, in part, “a network entity such as a client device, an AP, or a management device/service may generate the MAC address using a pseudo-random number generator (PRNG). For example, if the client device 320a generates the MAC address using a secure PRNG, the client device 320a may share the sequence (in a form of an equation or a seed value) with the network including the network device 350 and/or other client devices in the network.”).
Regarding claim 5, Mestanov discloses:
disassociating from the AP station before using the new value of the EUI to next associate with the AP station. (Par.[0078] which recites, in part, “the request may in some examples indicate to the wireless access node that the current MAC address will be used when re-connecting, e.g. establishing a connection to the wireless access node after being disconnected therefrom, at a later stage”).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, the disclosure of Mestanov teaches:
a method for changing a value of an Extended Unique Identifier, EUI (par.[0001] discloses a MAC address, “A method and a first node, such as the wireless device, for updating a MAC address of the first node as well as a method and a second node, such as the wireless access node, for managing an update of a MAC address of the first node are disclosed.”), of a non-access point, non-AP, station (par.[0001] describes a Station (STA)/Wireless Device which is a non-access point non-AP, station), the method comprising at the AP station:
generating a new value of the EUI of a non-AP station by using an EUI-generating function shared with the AP station (fig.3 at element 303 the STA sends a request to update/change its MAC address, at 304 the AP receives the request, and at 305 the AP generates an updated MAC for the STA to utilize. Additionally, the a first node, par.[0065] which is a STA, is capable of generating a new MAC address, and sending the new address to the AP, element 404-405 Par.[0130] “Hence, a WLAN STA may be able to change its MAC address to e.g. a seemingly random one in order to improve user privacy, while at the same time the WLAN itself can keep providing user context enabled functionality.”); and
using the new value of the EUI when next associating with the AP station (par.[0078] which recites, in part, “the request may in some examples indicate to the wireless access node that the current MAC address will be used when re-connecting, e.g. establishing a connection to the wireless access node after being disconnected therefrom, at a later stage”).
While the disclosure of Mestanov substantially discloses the claimed, subject matter, and in par.[0130] describes the station generating a “seemingly random” MAC address it does not explicitly disclose:
generating a new value of the EUI of the non-AP station by using an pseudorandom function.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Ficara teaches:
generating a new value of the EUI of the non-AP station by using an pseudorandom function (par.[0058] which recites, in part, “a network entity such as a client device, an AP, or a management device/service may generate the MAC address using a pseudo-random number generator (PRNG). For example, if the client device 320a generates the MAC address using a secure PRNG, the client device 320a may share the sequence (in a form of an equation or a seed value) with the network including the network device 350 and/or other client devices in the network.”).
As can be seen, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosures of Mestanov which teaches the use of seemingly random MAC address change, with the disclosure of Ficara which teaches use of switching the MAC address with pseudorandom address. The motivation/suggestion would have been to protect the user data transmission by modifying the MAC address of the station to prevent spoofing or other malicious attacks.
Regarding claim 12, Mestanov discloses:
disassociating the non-AP station before receiving, from the non-AP station, a request to associate again using the new value of the EUI (par.[0046 and 0052] wherein the request for new MAC address includes an indication that the STA will use the new MAC address at a later stage. Wherein a later stage in par.[0074] is described as at least a one of a disconnection and reconnection).
Regarding claim 13, Mestanov discloses:
wherein disassociating from the AP station is made based on a current value of the EUI of the non-AP station different from the new value of the EUI (par.[0046] “the request message instructs the wireless access node 120 to send a MAC address to the wireless device 110, which MAC address is to be used at a later stage.” Par.[0052]).
Regarding claim 14, Mestanov discloses:
wherein generating the new value of the EUI for the next association is performed during a disassociation process disassociating between the non-AP station and the AP station while the non-AP station is still associated with the AP station (par.[0014] which recites, in part, “In this manner, the first and second nodes achieve a common understanding of which MAC address, i.e. the second MAC address, the first node will be identified by at a later stage.”. par.[0074] describes later stage as at least a disconnection and re-connection).
Regarding claim 15, the disclosure of Mestanov in view of Ficara teaches:
while the non-AP station is associated with the AP station, generating a plurality of successive new values of the EUI for the non-AP station by using the shared pseudorandom function; wherein a last generated new value of the EUI is used when performing the next association (Mestanov:fig.3 the element 305 – 306 wherein the MAC address can be generated based upon a request, and may be performed successively. Additionally, the STA may send a request indicating that the MAC should be used at a later stage, see par.[0014] which recites, in part, “In this manner, the first and second nodes achieve a common understanding of which MAC address, i.e. the second MAC address, the first node will be identified by at a later stage.”. par.[0074] describes later stage as at least a disconnection and re-connection and Ficara, as discussed above teaches the use of the pseudorandom function).
Regarding claim 16, Mestanov discloses:
wherein the last generated new value is generated during a disassociation process disassociating the non-AP station from the AP station while the non-AP station is still associated with the AP station (par.[0014] which recites, in part, “In this manner, the first and second nodes achieve a common understanding of which MAC address, i.e. the second MAC address, the first node will be identified by at a later stage.”. par.[0074] describes later stage as at least a disconnection and re-connection).
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) 6-7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mestanov in view of Ficara as applied to the independent claims, in view of Hawkes (US 2023/0098093 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Mestanov and Ficara discloses:
otherwise using a default EUI value as discussed above with reference to claim 2, but does not disclose:
comprising at the non-AP station: receiving a beacon frame from an AP station; searching, in a local registry, for an EUI value associated with a BSSID of the AP station; and
sending a management request to the AP station using a found EUI value associated with the BSSID.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Hawkes teaches:
comprising at the non-AP station:
receiving a beacon frame from an AP station (par.[0176] which recites, in part, “At 1506, the AP 1502 broadcasts a beacon including the temporary MAC address D1.”);
searching, in a local registry, for an EUI value associated with a BSSID of the AP station (par.[0178] which recites, in part, “the STA 1504 may attempt to authenticate the AP 1502 as being associated with the ESS to which the STA 1504 previously was associated.” Interpreted as searching a local registry implicit as the station can identify previous association with ESS, which is an extended service set of BSS); and
sending a management request to the AP station using a found EUI value associated with the BSSID (par.[0179] describes the sending of the probe request).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings discussed in Mestanov and Ficara with the disclosure of Hawkes. The motivation/suggestion would have been to provide a method associating a STA with a WAP in an extended service set.
Regarding claim 7, Mestanov, Ficara, and Hawkes discloses:
while not being associated with an AP station (fig.14 element 1412 the UE is not yet associated with an AP and sends a probe request), sending one or more management requests to one or more respective AP stations (fig.14 the aforecited probe requests are sent by the STA to the AP);
receiving a management response from one of the respective AP stations (fig.14 element 1414 the STA receives the probe response);
searching, in a local registry, for an EUI value associated with a BSSID of the responding AP station (par.[0261] describes receiving a probe response and identifying based on an identifier whether the STA has ever been associated with the AP, par.[0177 – 0178] describe this as well); and
sending a further management request to associate with the responding AP station, wherein the further management request includes a found EUI value associated with the BSSID (fig.14 element 1432 the UE sends the probe request with found temporary MAC);
otherwise includes a default EUI value (Mestanov: par.[0103] and fig.5 describe prior to updating a MAC, the UE must authenticate using a default MAC or previously known MAC, par.[0012 – 0014, 0104 – 0109]).
Claim(s) 9-11 and 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mestanov in view of Ficara, as applied to the independent claims, in view of Edney (US 2007/0118748 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the disclosure of Mestanov and Ficara substantially discloses the claimed invention, it may not disclose:
receiving, from a non-AP station, a management request signaling a value of an EUI of the non-AP station; searching for the signaled EUI value within EUI values locally stored at the AP station and obtaining a unique local identifier associated with the locally-stored EUI value matching the signaled EUI value.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Edney teaches:
receiving, from a non-AP station, a management request signaling a value of an EUI of the non-AP station; searching for the signaled EUI value within EUI values locally stored at the AP station and obtaining a unique local identifier associated with the locally-stored EUI value matching the signaled EUI value (par.[0038] The STA 20 shall send a message to the AP indicating an intent to use a new AMID value and containing the Commit Value and using the AMID as its identifying MAC address (Source MAC Address). [0039] The AP 10 shall confirm that the proposed AMID value is not currently in use. If it is in use, the AP 10 may indicate this to the STA 20 and take no further action. If it is not in use, the AP 10 shall store the new AMID in the table and reply to the STA 20 indicating the value of Inactivity Time for the AMID…….. [0041] When the STA 20 no longer wishes to use the AMID value, it shall send a message to inform the AP 10 and shall include in the message the value of "Commit key". The AP 10 shall compute the hash value of Commit key and AMID and confirm a match with the previously stored Commit value and, if matching, shall remove the AMID from its AMID table. Note: the use of the Commit value prevents another STA from "stealing" the AMID by forging a disconnect message.”. As can be seen, the AP and STA both store the AMID with the commit value which is a unique identifier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosures of Mestanov for modifying the MAC address with the storage as discussed in Edney. The motivation/suggestion would have been to provide a mechanism for identifying which MAC belongs to which STA.
Regarding claim 10, the disclosure of Edney teaches:
updating a current value of the EUI of the non-AP station locally associated with the unique local identifier, with the generated new value of the EUI (par.[0038] “The STA 20 shall send a message to the AP indicating an intent to use a new AMID value and containing the Commit Value and using the AMID as its identifying MAC address (Source MAC Address). [0039] The AP 10 shall confirm that the proposed AMID value is not currently in use. If it is in use, the AP 10 may indicate this to the STA 20 and take no further action. If it is not in use, the AP 10 shall store the new AMID in the table and reply to the STA 20 indicating the value of Inactivity Time for the AMID.”).
Regarding claim 11, the disclosure of Edney teaches:
locally associating the generated new value of the EUI with a unique local identifier (see “The STA 20 shall generate a random value called a "Commit Key" and shall store this value. [0037] The STA 20 shall compute a value called "Commit Value" by hashing together the selected AMID and Commit key using a cryptographic algorithm known publicly such as SHA-256 (Secure Hash Signature Standard (SHS) FIPS PUB 180-2.). [0038] The STA 20 shall send a message to the AP indicating an intent to use a new AMID value and containing the Commit Value and using the AMID as its identifying MAC address (Source MAC Address). [0039] The AP 10 shall confirm that the proposed AMID value is not currently in use. If it is in use, the AP 10 may indicate this to the STA 20 and take no further action. If it is not in use, the AP 10 shall store the new AMID in the table and reply to the STA 20 indicating the value of Inactivity Time for the AMID…….. [0041] When the STA 20 no longer wishes to use the AMID value, it shall send a message to inform the AP 10 and shall include in the message the value of "Commit key". The AP 10 shall compute the hash value of Commit key and AMID and confirm a match with the previously stored Commit value and, if matching, shall remove the AMID from its AMID table. Note: the use of the Commit value prevents another STA from "stealing" the AMID by forging a disconnect message.”. As can be seen, the AP and STA both store the AMID with the commit value which is a unique identifier).
Regarding claim 17, the disclosure of Mestanov in view of Ficara substantially discloses the claimed invention, it may not disclose:
generating the new value of the EUI includes calculating the new value of the EUI by using a shared secret and a current value of a shared parameter as inputs of the shared pseudorandom function.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Edney teaches:
generating the new value of the EUI includes calculating the new value of the EUI by using a shared secret and a current value of a shared parameter as inputs of the shared pseudorandom function (par.[0036] which recites, in part, “The STA 20 shall generate a random value called a "Commit Key" and shall store this value. [0037] The STA 20 shall compute a value called "Commit Value" by hashing together the selected AMID and Commit key using a cryptographic algorithm known publicly such as SHA-256 (Secure Hash Signature Standard (SHS) FIPS PUB 180-2.).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Mestanov and Ficara with the disclosure of Edney. The motivation/suggestion would have been to allow each of the devices of the network to predictably decipher and/or create a MAC address with some level of reliability. As is known the temporary address is different from a physical hardware address and provides some anonymity to the STA while transmitting on the network.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments, see 112 Rejections, filed 09/14/2026, with respect to 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 Rejection of claims 14 and 16 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 18-20, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee et al. (WO 2016/114843 A2) “Wi-Fi Privacy in a Wireless Station Using Media Access Control Address Randomization”
Elliott (US 2015/0063205 A1) “Mobile Station and Method for Anonymous Media Access Control Addressing”
Chen et al. (US 2017/0201930 A1) “Service Processing Method and Apparatus”
Henry et al. (WO 2022/245622 A1) “Device Address Rotation Management Protocol for A Wireless Local Area Network” par.[0013].
Montemurro et al. (US 2022/0086627 A1) “Multiple Link Layer Addresses for a Device”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)272-3123. 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.
JAMAAL HENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2411
/JAMAAL HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights