DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are rejected.
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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processing unit” in claims 9-12 and 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: "electrical circuits…a circuit utilizing a microprocessor, or on a single chip containing electronic elements or microprocessors” (see paragraph 0041 of the specification as filed).
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCann et al. (U.S. PGPub 2022/0386109) in view of Fang et al. (U.S. PGPub 2023/0300131).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 15, McCann teaches A method comprising: determining epoch parameters for a Station (STA), the epoch parameters comprising a minimum epoch period duration and a maximum epoch period duration; (McCann, see figs. 4-5 and 10-11; see paragraph 0048 where monitors for a trigger to change the MAC addresses of one or more of the affiliated STAs 24...the trigger may be the expiry of a predetermined amount of time since the MAC address of the affiliated STA was set, such as a predetermined periodic interval (Note that the interval is a period between two points or times (e.g. between a minimum period duration and maximum period duration)). The expiry of the predetermined amount of time may be monitored by a timer, such as a countdown timer ...The predetermined amount of time may be a few minutes)
wherein the STA is operable to rotate a Media Access Control (MAC) address each epoch period at a time between the minimum epoch period duration and the maximum epoch period duration; and (McCann, see figs. 4-5 and 10-11; see paragraph 0048 where monitors for a trigger to change the MAC addresses of one or more of the affiliated STAs 24...the trigger may be the expiry of a predetermined amount of time since the MAC address of the affiliated STA was set, such as a predetermined periodic interval (MAC address change or rotate between the interval (lower and upper value of the interval)). The expiry of the predetermined amount of time may be monitored by a timer, such as a countdown timer...The predetermined amount of time may be a few minutes; see paragraph 0055 applies the MAC address change to the affiliated STAs 24, 26 in response to receiving the MAC Address Change Acknowledgement frame)
updating a mapping of the STA and the MAC address each epoch period. (McCann, see figs. 4-5 and 10-11; see paragraph 0050 where generates new MAC addresses for one or more of the affiliated STAs in response to the detection of the trigger (trigger for each period); see paragraph 0067 detected the trigger generates a new MAC address for itself and optionally one or more other affiliated STAs 24, 26 in response to the detection of the trigger.)
However, McCann does not explicitly teach sending the epoch parameters to the STA,
Fang teaches sending the epoch parameters to the STA, (Fang, see figs. 3D and 4B; see paragraph 0141 where sends a MAC Address Change Request message to the STA (451) with RA=the STA (451)'s MAC address (i.e. STA-Addr1), TA=AP (452)'s MAC address (i.e. AP-Addr) and the encrypted new MAC address (i.e. STA-Addr2) carried in the MAC Address Change IE for the STA (451) to use in future communication with the AP (452)...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invent was filed, to combine McCann and Fang to provide the technique of sending the epoch parameters to the STA of Fang in the system of McCann in order to prevent MAC address from being tracked and solve MAC address collision during changing a MAC address of station (Fang, see paragraphs 0005 and 0014).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 16, McCann-Fang teaches further comprising: advertising support for epoch periods for MAC address rotation; and (Fang, see figs. 3D and 4B; see paragraphs 0140-0141 where listens to transmissions in the coverage area, and selects an available MAC address which is not used by other STAs. The AP may initiate the MAC address change for the STA when it needs...In step 412, the AP (452) sends a MAC Address Change Request message to the STA (451) with RA=the STA (451)'s MAC address (i.e. STA-Addr1), TA=AP (452)'s MAC address (i.e. AP-Addr) and the encrypted new MAC address (i.e. STA-Addr2) carried in the MAC Address Change IE for the STA (451) to use in future communication with the AP (452).)
receiving a request from the STA to use epoch periods for MAC address rotation, (Fang, see figs. 3D and 4B; see paragraphs 0140-0141 where listens to transmissions in the coverage area, and selects an available MAC address which is not used by other STAs. The AP may initiate the MAC address change for the STA when it needs...In step 412, the AP (452) sends a MAC Address Change Request message to the STA (451) with RA=the STA (451)'s MAC address (i.e. STA-Addr1), TA=AP (452)'s MAC address (i.e. AP-Addr) and the encrypted new MAC address (i.e. STA-Addr2) carried in the MAC Address Change IE for the STA (451) to use in future communication with the AP (452).)
wherein determining the epoch parameters is in response to the request. (Fang, see figs. 3D and 4B; see paragraphs 0140-0141 where listens to transmissions in the coverage area, and selects an available MAC address which is not used by other STAs. The AP may initiate the MAC address change for the STA when it needs...In step 412, the AP (452) sends a MAC Address Change Request message to the STA (451) with RA=the STA (451)'s MAC address (i.e. STA-Addr1), TA=AP (452)'s MAC address (i.e. AP-Addr) (epoch parameter) and the encrypted new MAC address (i.e. STA-Addr2) (epoch parameters) carried in the MAC Address Change IE for the STA (451) to use in future communication with the AP (452).) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 1, 9 and 15 is also applied to claims 2, 10 and 16.
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 17, McCann-Fang teaches further comprising sending a trigger signal to cause the STA to rotate the MAC address. (McCann, see figs. 4-5 and 10-11; see paragraph 0048 where monitors for a trigger to change the MAC addresses of one or more of the affiliated STAs 24...the trigger may be the expiry of a predetermined amount of time since the MAC address of the affiliated STA was set, such as a predetermined periodic interval. The expiry of the predetermined amount of time may be monitored by a timer, such as a countdown timer...The predetermined amount of time may be a few minutes; see paragraph 0055 applies the MAC address change to the affiliated STAs 24, 26 in response to receiving the MAC Address Change Acknowledgement frame)
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 18, McCann-Fang teaches wherein updating the mapping of the STA and the MAC address for each epoch period comprises any one of (i) receiving a frame from the STA with a new MAC address and updating the mapping to the new MAC address, or (ii) sending a second frame to the STA with the new MAC address and updating the mapping to the new MAC address. (McCann, see figs. 4-5 and 10-11; see paragraph 0050 where generates new MAC addresses for one or more of the affiliated STAs in response to the detection of the trigger (trigger for each period); see paragraph 0067 detected the trigger generates a new MAC address for itself and optionally one or more other affiliated STAs 24, 26 in response to the detection of the trigger.)
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 19, McCann-Fang teaches further comprising: determining a collision can occur between the STA and a second STA during a future epoch period of the STA; and (Fang, see fig. 3D; see paragraph 0109 where STA initiated dynamic MAC address change mechanism for MAC address collision case. The STA (351) and the AP (352) communicate with each other via the MAC address (i.e. MAC-Addr1) of the STA (351) and the MAC address (i.e. AP-Addr) of the AP (352)...; see paragraph 0115 where finds that it is being used by another STA. The AP (352) proposed a new available MAC address, i.e. STA-Addr3, for the STA (351) in future communications...)
sending a collision warning action frame to the STA, the collision warning action frame instructing the STA to skip the future epoch period and jump to a subsequent future epoch period. (Fang, see fig. 3D; see paragraph 0109 where STA initiated dynamic MAC address change mechanism for MAC address collision case…; see paragraph 0115 finds that it is being used by another STA. The AP (352) proposed a new available MAC address, i.e. STA-Addr3, for the STA (351) in future communications...; see paragraph 0117 the AP (352) sends a MAC Address Change Response message with RA=STA-Addr2, TA=AP-Addr and the encrypted new proposed MAC address, i.e. STA-Addr3, carried in the MAC Address Change IE.) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 1, 9 and 15 is also applied to claims 7, 14 and 19.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, McCann-Fang teaches further comprising, at a start of each epoch period, performing a replica association process. (Fang, see figs. 3D and 4B; see paragraph 0112 the AP (452) sends a MAC Address Change Request message to the STA (451) with RA=the STA (451)'s MAC address (i.e. STA-Addr1)…; see paragraph 00146 where In step 416, the AP (452) sends the MAC Address Change Ack message with RA=STA-Addr1, TA=AP-Addr, and the encrypted new MAC address for the STA (451), i.e. STA-Addr3. (notes that 416 is a second (replica) transmission to STA (451), but with STA-Addr3 ) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 1, 9 and 15 is also applied to claims 8 and 20.
Claims 4-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCann et al. (U.S. PGPub 2022/0386109) in view of Fang et al. (U.S. PGPub 2023/0300131) further in view of Luo et al. (WO 2023164949, see English translated copy).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, McCann-Fang teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 9. However, McCann-Fang does not explicitly teach further comprising: receiving a frame from the STA with a previous MAC address before a transmission timeout value; and
Luo teaches further comprising: receiving a frame from the STA with a previous MAC address before a transmission timeout value; and (Luo, see page 18, paragraph 5 send the first frame within the predefined timeout period T0 (that is, before time t2),indicating at least one of STA1's changed MAC address information, changed identification information, and change time (that is, updated T1)...)
validating the frame in response to receiving the frame before the transmission timeout value, wherein the epoch parameters further comprises the transmission timeout value. (Luo, see page 18, paragraphs 5-6 send the first frame within the predefined timeout period T0 (that is, before time t2),indicating at least one of STA1's changed MAC address information, changed identification information, and change time (that is, updated T1)...After receiving the first frame, STA1 determines the change time of the MAC address information and identification information according to the change time information indicated in the first frame or the second frame, and then uses the new MAC address information and identification information for data processing after the change time. transmission)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invent was filed, to combine McCann-Fang and Luo to provide the technique of receiving a frame from the STA with a previous MAC address before a transmission timeout value and validating the frame in response to receiving the frame before the transmission timeout value, wherein the epoch parameters further comprises the transmission timeout value of Luo in the system of McCann-Fang in order to improve user privacy (Luo, see page 2, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 5, McCann-Fang teaches all of the features of claim 1. However, McCann-Fang does not explicitly teach further comprising: sending one or more frames to the STA with a previous MAC address before a transmission timeout value; and
removing any additional frames with the previous MAC address from a queue after the transmission timeout value.
Luo teaches further comprising: sending one or more frames to the STA with a previous MAC address before a transmission timeout value; and (Luo, see page 18, paragraph 5 send the first frame within the predefined timeout period T0 (that is, before time t2),indicating at least one of STA1's changed MAC address information, changed identification information, and change time (that is, updated T1)...)
removing any additional frames with the previous MAC address from a queue after the transmission timeout value. (Luo, see page 18, paragraph 5 send the first frame within the predefined timeout period T0 (that is, before time t2),indicating at least one of STA1's changed MAC address information, changed identification information, and change time (that is, updated T1)...; see page 19 paragraph 9 access point device may discard the frame and may not retransmit the frame.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invent was filed, to combine McCann-Fang and Luo to provide the technique of sending one or more frames to the STA with a previous MAC address before a transmission timeout value and removing any additional frames with the previous MAC address from a queue after the transmission timeout value of Luo in the system of McCann-Fang in order to improve user privacy (Luo, see page 2, paragraph 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes:
U.S. PGPub 2016/0234134, which describes a method for dynamic removal of MAC table entries based on a MAC table fullness level;
U.S. PGPub 2021/0360465, which describes techniques related to communication over wireless networks, such as wireless networks that include wireless stations and access point; and
U.S. PGPub 2024/0007846, which describes systems and apparatuses for performing an address change by an access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) and non-AP MLD.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MENG VANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7023. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-2PM, 3PM-5PM.
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, NICHOLAS TAYLOR can be reached at (571) 272-3889. 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.
/MENG VANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443