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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/907,284 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are drawn towards Identifiable Random Media Access Control (MAC) (IRM) addresses handling address collisions.
Instant claim 1. A method in a wireless network comprising at least one wireless station and at least one access point (AP): receiving, by a wireless access point (AP), a first Identifiable Random Media Access Control (MAC) (IRM) address in an IRM information element during execution of a handshake protocol between the AP and a wireless station, wherein the first IRM address is selected by the wireless station; determining that the first IRM address is allocated for use by another wireless station; transmitting, by the wireless AP, a message to the wireless station indicating that the first IRM address is allocated for use by another wireless station; receiving, by the wireless AP, a first wireless action frame transmitted by the wireless station after execution of the handshake protocol, wherein the wireless action frame includes a second IRM address selected by the wireless station in response to the message from the AP indicating that the first IRM address is allocated for use by another wireless station; and establishing a wireless connection with the wireless station in a subsequent association with the wireless station, wherein the wireless station uses the second IRM address in the subsequent association.
Conflicting claim 1. A method in a wireless network comprising at least one wireless station and at least one access point (AP), comprising: selecting, by a wireless station, a first Identifiable Random Media Access Control (MAC) (IRM) address; sending, by the wireless station, the first IRM address in an IRM information element during execution of a handshake protocol between the wireless station and the AP; receiving, by the wireless station, a message from the AP indicating whether the selected first IRM address is allocated for use by another wireless station; responsive to the message from the AP indicating that the selected first IRM address is allocated for use by another wireless station: selecting, by the wireless station, a second IRM address different from the first IRM address; and transmitting, by the wireless station, a first wireless action frame to the AP after execution of the handshake protocol, wherein the wireless action frame includes the second IRM address; and using, by the wireless station, the second IRM address in a subsequent association with the wireless AP or any other AP in a same extended service set (ESS) of the wireless AP.
Accordingly, every step of instant claim 1 either directly corresponds to, or is the obvious counterpart necessitated by, a step recited in the conflicting claim 1. A skilled artisan practicing the method of either claim would necessarily practice, or find it obvious to practice, the correlative steps of the other.
Instant claims 2-15 correspond to conflicting claims 2-15, respectively
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20030177267 A1 herein Orava.
Claim 1, Orava discloses a method in a wireless network comprising at least one wireless station and at least one access point (AP) (Fig. 1: WLAN with multiple APs and MTs).
receiving, by a wireless access point (AP), a first Identifiable Random Media Access Control (MAC) (IRM) address in an IRM information element during execution of a handshake protocol between the AP and a wireless station, wherein the first IRM address is selected by the wireless station ([0030]: "MAC can be a random number generated by means of a random number generator. MAC can be selected from the address space allocated to the MT. .. "; [0031]: "The MT transmits 304 to the access point AP a request comprising the MAC address MAC to be suggested as the MAC layer source address; [0032]: "The access point AP receives a request 305, determines the MAC which is the source address of the request..."; Fig. 3, steps 303-305);
determining that the first IRM address is allocated for use by another wireless station ([0032]: " ... and checks 306 the uniqueness of the MAC address to be suggested in this way."; [0033]: "the AP checks whether the address MAC suggested by the terminal MT is in use in terminals MT associated to this AP"; [0039]: "If the address is reserved, the original holder of the address responds with a response message indicating this ... The requesting AP concludes from the response message that the address is in use."; [0048]: "If, on the basis of checking 306, 307, the MAC address is not unique ... ");
transmitting, by the wireless AP, a message to the wireless station indicating that the first IRM address is allocated for use by another wireless station ([0048]: " ... the access point AP rejects 308 the request and begins to wait for new requests."; [0049]: "it is alternatively possible for the access point AP to transmit a response in step 308 to a multicast address, for example, which indicates the error. It is not advisable to transmit the error message to the MAC address MAC suggested by the terminal MT ... If the address MAC is already reserved, both the new terminal and the original holder would receive the error message and both of these would acknowledge the packet as received by means of an acknowledgement message.");
receiving, by the wireless AP, a first wireless action frame transmitted by the wireless station after execution of the handshake protocol, wherein the wireless action frame includes a second IRM address selected by the wireless station in response to the message from the AP indicating that the first IRM address is allocated for use by another wireless station (Fig. 3: loop from decision block 310 "Response message received?" (No) back to block 303 "Determining MAC address to be suggested" and block 304 "Transmitting request comprising MAC," i.e., the MT selects a new MAC address and transmits it to the AP in a packet following rejection of the first; [0056]: "The access point AP can, however, detect the problem when it receives the second response and forces the terminals MT to request for new MAC addresses (typically again associate)" - i.e., after the handshake protocol has executed, the terminal transmits a further packet/transmission comprising the second address to the AP);
establishing a wireless connection with the wireless station in a subsequent association with the wireless station, wherein the wireless station uses the second IRM address in the subsequent association ([0048]: " ... the access point AP transmits 309 a response to the terminal MT, the destination address of which is MAC, which indicates that the checking of the uniqueness was successful. This response may be an authentication response or an association response ... Thus, the access point AP can identify 312 the terminal MT by using the identifier MAC as a temporary MAC address."; [0056]: AP "forces the terminals MT to request for new MAC addresses (typically again associate)" following a detected collision).
Claim 2, Orava discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising transmitting, by the wireless AP, a second wireless action frame to the wireless station, wherein the second wireless action frame indicates a recognition or a collision of the second IRM address (0048]: AP "transmits 309 a response to the terminal MT. .. which indicates that the checking of the uniqueness was successful" [recognition]; (0048)-(0049]: AP "rejects 308 the request" and may transmit "a response ... which indicates the error" [collision]).
Claim 3, Orava discloses the method of claim 2 wherein, when the second wireless action frame indicates recognition of the second IRM address, the second wireless action frame further comprises an indication of a validity time period for the second IRM address ([0052]: "The reference identifier REF may be, for instance, a random number or a time stamp."; [0055]: "The access point AP includes the new MAC address and the reference identifier REF in the response 407 to be transmitted to the MT. .. "; [0058]: "a validity time can be determined for a temporary MAC address as early as at the allocation or uniqueness checking stage, the MAC being released when the validity time has expired (if the MT has not requested for an extension)").
Claim 4, Orava discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the handshake protocol is an authentication protocol ([0031]: "The request may be an authentication request, or an association request according to the IEEE 802.11 specifications."; [0048]: "This response may be an authentication response or an association response in a system according to IEEE 802.11.").
Claim 5, Orava discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising transmitting a notification of an allocation of the second IRM address to one or more other access points in an Extended Service Set (ESS) ([0032]: "The checking 306 may be decentralized, in other words the access point AP utilizes some other service or network element to check the uniqueness. The checking 306 can be performed for example by using the IAPP protocol (Inter Access Point Protocol). The access points AP belonging to the WLAN network may for instance have a common database in which a list is maintained on temporary MAC addresses MAC ... "; [0044]: "The AP transmits a message to the fixed network to a multicast address or broadcast address. The message comprises an address MAC suggested by the terminal MT. All APs of the network process the packets transmitted to this address."; [0057]: "the uniqueness of the MAC addresses can be guaranteed only within the ESS, where the IAPP protocol, for example, can be used between the access points.").
Claim 6, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1. Orava discloses a wireless access point comprising at least one memory element for storing data; and at least one processor for executing instructions associated with the data, wherein executing the instructions causes the wireless access point to perform operations (Orava discloses an Access Point, which is a conventional communications device, hence a memory with stored instructions and a processor are implied).
Claim 7, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 2.
Claim 8, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 3.
Claim 9, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 4.
Claim 10, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 5.
Claim 11, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1. Orava discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations (Orava discloses an Access Point, which is a conventional communications device, hence a memory with stored instructions and a processor are implied).
Claim 12, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 2.
Claim 13, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 3.
Claim 14, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 4.
Claim 15, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 5.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20230208617 A1 – A method for a mobile station (STA) is described. The method may be performed to use an identifiable medium access control (MAC) random (IRM) address (IRMA) to associate to an access point (AP). The method includes exchanging one IRM key (IRMK) with the AP for each association of a plurality of associations; determining an IRM hash using the IRMA and the IRMK exchanged with the AP at an immediately previous association of the plurality of associations and/or a temporal element; associating to the AP using the IRMA as a transmitted address (TA); and transmitting an association request including the IRM hash. The transmitted association request triggers the AP to one or both of check a list of stored IRMKs to find one stored IRMK that together with the IRMA produces the IRM hash included in the association request and identify the STA by the one IRMK.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mehmood B. Khan whose telephone number is (571)272-9277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at (571) 272-3988. 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.
/Mehmood B. Khan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
MEHMOOD B. KHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights