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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 12/30/2024 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 12/30/2024 are accepted.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US-2007/0049252 hereinafter, Smith).
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches a method comprising:
receiving a re-association request (Page 1 [0012]) from a client device (Fig. 1 [125]) in response to the client device failing to authenticate with a network through an Access Point (AP) (Fig. 1 [110]) of the network; (Fig. 1 [100])
processing the re-association request; (Fig. 2 [206] and Page 3 [0033] “The method 200 can be implemented on the station, or on a device to which the station is communicatively linked”)
determining, in response to processing of the re-association request resulting in another authentication failure for the client device through the AP (Fig. 2 [206, Yes]), that a number of authentication failures through the AP is greater than a predetermined number; (Fig. 2 [210], Yes) and
sending an indication to the client device in response to determining that the number of authentication failures through the AP is greater than the predetermined number (Fig. 2 [212]), wherein the indication triggers the client device to send a new association request instead of another re-association request. (Fig. 2 [214], Page 3 [0034], Page 4 [0043] “If, however, the re-association retry counter is greater than the threshold, the process can proceed back to step 204 of the method 200 presented in FIG. 2, and a full security exchange can be implemented” note: “full security exchange” is a new association request instead of a “re-association request”, see Page 5 Claim 18)
Regarding claim 6, Smith teaches wherein the indication comprises a reason code corresponding to a type of failure. (Page 3 [0035] “An EAP failure packet can indicate that the station was not authenticated by the access point”)
Regarding claim 8, Smith teaches a system comprising:
a memory storage; (Page 5 Claim 19) and
a processing unit coupled to the memory storage (Page 2 [0017] “processor”), wherein the processing unit is operative to:
receiving a re-association request (Page 1 [0012]) from a client device (Fig. 1 [125]) in response to the client device failing to authenticate with a network through an Access Point (AP) (Fig. 1 [110]) of the network; (Fig. 1 [100])
processing the re-association request; (Fig. 2 [206] and Page 3 [0033] “The method 200 can be implemented on the station, or on a device to which the station is communicatively linked”)
determining, in response to processing of the re-association request resulting in another authentication failure for the client device through the AP (Fig. 2 [206, Yes]), that a number of authentication failures through the AP is greater than a predetermined number; (Fig. 2 [210], Yes) and
sending an indication to the client device in response to determining that the number of authentication failures through the AP is greater than the predetermined number (Fig. 2 [222] and Page 3 [0037] “failure packet”), wherein the indication triggers the client device to send a new association request instead of another re-association request. (Fig. 2 [214], Page 3 [0034], Page 4 [0043] “If, however, the re-association retry counter is greater than the threshold, the process can proceed back to step 204 of the method 200 presented in FIG. 2, and a full security exchange can be implemented” note: “full security exchange” is a new association request instead of a “re-association request”)
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of claim 13 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of claim 15 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 1 and 8. See additionally Page 5 Claim 19 for “non-transitory computer-readable medium”.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations of claim 20 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 6.
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 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Narasimhan et al. (US-2013/0305332 hereinafter Narashimhan.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 14, Smith teaches the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting wherein the indication is sent as a flag in a de-authentication/dis-associate frame.
In an analogous art, Narasimhan teaches a system and method for providing data link layer and network layer mobility in a wireless network (Abstract) that includes sending an indication as a flag in a de-authentication/dis-associate frame. (Page 9 [0119] note: the “indication as a flag” is inherently included in the de-authentication/dis-associate frame as the client recognizes to “initiate a fresh Initial Mobility Domain Association”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Smith after modifying it to incorporate the ability to send a de-authentication/disassociation frame of Narasimhan since it enables restarting a fresh association when security information is missing/does not match. (Narasimhan Page 9 [0119])
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Banerjee et al. (US-12,707,266 hereinafter, Banerjee).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Smith teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 8 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting wherein the number of authentication failures is tracked based on a Media Access Control (MAC) address associated with the client device as received in the re-association request.
In an analogous art, Banerjee teaches a method and system for protecting a wireless access point from repeated connection attacks (Abstract) that includes tracking the number of authentication failures based on a Media Access Control (MAC) address associated with the client device as received in the re-association request. (Col. 11 lines 55-65 and Col. 12 lines 4-10)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Smith after modifying it to incorporate the ability to track failures from client devices based on the MAC address of the client device of Banerjee since it enables identifying potentially malicious devices attempting to connect to the access point and provides the ability to block the malicious device from inputting security credentials based on the MAC address. (Banerjee Col. 1 lines 51-64)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 10-12 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claims 3, 10 and 17, Applicant’s specification states that the “Trigger Association (TA) frame” is “a new type of frame” [0027] and the Examiner was unable to find it in the prior art when considering the additional limitations of the independent claims. With respect to claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18 and 19, the Examiner was unable to find the contents of these claims in the prior art when considering the additional limitations of the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN-102075353-B to Feng which discloses a mobility management method for tracking associations, association failures and the ability to cancel the re-associations when they reach a predetermined value.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C SAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 EST.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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 C Sams/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
