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 .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180132295 to Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”) in view of NPL IEEE P802.11-REVme/D3.0, April 2023 to IEEE Computer Society (hereinafter “IEEE”)
Claim 1
Wang teaches an electronic device [Wang; Fig 2B Item 202], comprising:
a transceiver [Wang; Fig 2B Item 220] configured to communicate over a wireless network[Wang; Fig 2B Item 216]; and
a processor [Wang; Fig 2B Item 218], communicatively coupled to the transceiver, and configured to:
receive [Wang; Para. 0011 “ The receiver is configured to receive a FILS discovery (FD) frame from an AP” ], using the transceiver and from a second electronic device [Wang; Fig 2C Item 270], a first information element (IE) [Wang; Para. 0070 - “FILS Discovery (FD) frame,”] comprising a first set of pointers [Wang; Para. 0103, 0104 “ a fixed-length four octet coding” “a variable-length coding of up to four octets” ] indicating a first set of security suites; [Wang; Para. 0103, 0104 “ The RSNE 800 includes a group data cipher suite field 802, which may be four bits long; a pairwise cipher suite list field 804, which may be eight bits long, allowing up to two pairwise suites; an AKM suite list field 806, which may be eight bits long, allowing up to two AKM suites; an optimized RSN capabilities field 808, which may be eight bits long; and a group management cipher suite field 810, which may be four bits long.”] [Wang; Para. 0102-0110, Fig. 7-11, Table 1 – Wang discloses the format of the optimized robust security network element (RSNE) including group suite identifier, pairwise suite ID and bits representing pointers. The tables further displays column and row. ]
transmit [Wang; Para. 0110 “ enable the STA to transmit” , Para. 0123 “enable a STA to initiate association”], using the transceiver and to the second electronic device, a second IE comprising a second set of pointers indicating a second set of security suites selected from the first set of security suites indicated by the second electronic device; [Wang; Para. 0011 “ determine to associate with the AP based on the received FD frame. The transmitter is configured to transmit an association request frame to the AP.” ]
use the second set of security suites for communicating with the second electronic device. [Wang; Para. 0043 “ Each of the base stations 214 a, 214 b may be any type of device configured to wirelessly interface with at least one of the WTRUs 202 a, 202 b, 202 c, 202 d to facilitate access to one or more communication networks” ]
While Wang teaches the electronic device of claim 1 Wang fails to explicitly teach the claimed limitations, however, IEEE teaches:
“receive, using the transceiver and from the second electronic device, a response indicating that the second electronic device confirms the second set of security suites” [IEEE; Page 698 – 707; Table 9-62, 9-63; Shows the structure of the association request and response in the frame body which contains information confirming selection of security. ]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include, the features above in the invention as disclosed by Wang as IEEE provides the explicit standard and definition for completing the association of Wang who relies on IEEE 802.11.
Claim 2:
Wang teaches the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising:
a memory storing a first security suite table and a second security suite table, wherein the processor is further configured to determine the second set of security suites from the first and second security suite tables using the first set of pointers in the first IE. [Wang; Para. 0108-0111 – Tables 1 and 2 ]
Claim 3:
Wang teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to receive the first IE in a beacon frame. [Wang; Para. 0070 - “ a modified short beacon frame” ]
Claim 4:
Wang teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to receive the first IE in a probe response frame. [Wang; Para. 0123 “ probe response frames, encoded in the SSID IE.” ]
Claim 5:
Wang and IEEE teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to receive the response indicating that the second electronic device confirms the second IE in an association response frame. [Wang; Para. 0011, 0043 – For access to network services it would be a logical step for providing an association response to an association request as known in the art. ] [IEEE; Page 698 – 707; Table 9-62, 9-63; Shows the structure of the association request and response in the frame body which contains information confirming selection of security. ]
Claim 6:
Wang teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to transmit the second IE using an association request frame. [Wang; Para. 0011 “ determine to associate with the AP based on the received FD frame. The transmitter is configured to transmit an association request frame to the AP.” ]
Claim 7:
Wang and IEEE teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to transmit the second IE in response to a selection of one or more credentials at the electronic device. [Wang; Para. 0011, 0043 – The association request requires the station to choose (e.g. select) security (e.g. credentials). ] [IEEE; Page 698 – 707; Table 9-62, 9-63; Shows the structure of the association request and response in the frame body which contains information confirming selection of security. ]
Claim 8:
Wang teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first IE or the second IE comprises a group suite identifier (ID) selector field and one or more pairwise suite ID selector fields. [Wang; Para. 0102-0110, Fig. 7-11, Table 1 – Wang discloses the format of the optimized robust security network element (RSNE) including group suite identifier, pairwise suite ID and bits representing pointers. The tables further displays column and row. ]
Claim 9:
Wang teaches the electronic device of claim 8, wherein the at least one of the first IE or the second IE further comprises a number of suite ID selectors field indicating a number of the one or more pairwise suite ID selector fields. [Wang; Para. 0102-0110, Fig. 7-11, Table 1 – Wang discloses the format of the optimized robust security network element (RSNE) including group suite identifier, pairwise suite ID and bits representing pointers. The tables further displays column and row. ]
Claim 10:
Wang teaches the electronic device of claim 8, wherein the group suite ID selector field of the first IE includes a pointer of the first set of pointers indicating a row in a first security suite table. [Wang; Para. 0102-0110, Fig. 7-11, Table 1 – Wang discloses the format of the optimized robust security network element (RSNE) including group suite identifier, pairwise suite ID and bits representing pointers. The tables further displays column and row. ]
Claim 11:
Wang teaches the electronic device of claim 10, wherein the group suite ID selector field of the second IE includes a pointer of the second set of pointers indicating the row in the first security suite table. [Wang; Para. 0102-0110, Fig. 7-11, Table 1 – Wang discloses the format of the optimized robust security network element (RSNE) including group suite identifier, pairwise suite ID and bits representing pointers. The tables further displays column and row. ]
Claim 12:
Wang teaches the electronic device of claim 8, wherein the one or more pairwise suite ID selector fields of the first IE include one or more pointers of the first set of pointers indicating a row in a second security suite table. [Wang; Para. 0102-0110, Fig. 7-11, Table 1 – Wang discloses the format of the optimized robust security network element (RSNE) including group suite identifier, pairwise suite ID and bits representing pointers. The tables further displays column and row. ]
Claim 13:
Wang teaches the electronic device of claim 12, wherein the one or more pairwise suite ID selector fields of the second IE include a single pointer of the second set of pointers selected from the one or more pointers of the first set of pointers of the first IE. [Wang; Para. 0102-0110, Fig. 7-11, Table 1 – Wang discloses the format of the optimized robust security network element (RSNE) including group suite identifier, pairwise suite ID and bits representing pointers. The tables further displays column and row. ]
Regarding claims 14-20 they are method and device claims essentially corresponding to the above recitations, and they are rejected, at least, for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER C HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday between 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM CST.
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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C HARRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432