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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
An information disclosure statement was not submitted with this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites a “ubiquitous wireless network,” which is unclear because a clear delineation between a wireless network and a ubiquitous one is not explicitly defined by the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is not clear whether claim 13 requires all of the elements of the list.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2008/0134288 (hereinafter “Halasz”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0302063 (hereinafter “Ahmed”).
Regarding claim 1, Halasz teaches: A wireless network connection system comprising: (a) a ubiquitous wireless network comprising (e.g., 102), (i) one or more network resources (100), (ii) a plurality of access points in communication with the one or more network resources (e.g., 102, [0014] plurality of network devices disposed on a network 109), and (iii) a database in communication with each of the plurality of access points, the database maintaining a lookup table ([0030] database); and (b) an electronic device seeking connection with the ubiquitous wireless network, the electronic device having an identifier ([0030] The digest created by the shared message authentication check key established between the switch 100 and AP 102 is used to verify the transmitted authentication state and wireless client MAC address.); (c) wherein the lookup table cross-references the identifier for the electronic device with a selection of the plurality of access points ([0030] The switch 100 adds the MAC address of the client 104 to its switch table database, as indicated in a function block 314.).
Halasz teaches that the access point is allotted network access ([0030] Flow is to a function block 316 where the client 104 is now a trusted entity, and subsequent client traffic is then allowed directly to and from the switch 100 and AP 102.), but does not explicitly teach: (d) wherein network access to the ubiquitous wireless network by the electronic device is restricted to the selection of the plurality of access points associated with the identifier for the electronic device in the lookup table.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ahmed teaches: wherein network access to the ubiquitous wireless network by the electronic device is restricted to the selection of the plurality of access points associated with the identifier for the electronic device in the lookup table ([0028], [0030] Authentication signaling will commence if there is not a match or if device 16 desires a data exchange with the access point 12c. Access point 12c sends an update notification message 508 to master access point 12a indicating that device 16 is now associated with access point 12c. In the case where there is no master access point, access point 12c sends an update notification message 510 to the group.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Halasz to include the feature of restricting access to a particular electronic device and a combination of Halasz with Almed renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., restricting access to a particular device).
Regarding claim 2, Halasz teaches: wherein the ubiquitous wireless network is configured to automatically retrieve the identifier from the electronic device ([0023] If the wireless client 104 is authorized, the AP 102 informs the switch 100 that the wireless client 104 MAC address is authorized.).
Regarding claim 3, Halasz teaches: wherein the identifier is based on at least one of a set of authentication credentials, a device name, and a device type ([0015] Authentication occurs primarily at system initialization time, or when a supplicant (such as the AP 102, or wireless client 104) requests connection to a port of an authenticator system or when authorized access has been become unauthorized, and subsequently needs to be reauthorized. (A system is defined as a device that is attached to a LAN by one or more ports, e.g., end stations, servers, MAC bridges, and routers.) [0016] The AP 102 can authenticate to the AS 106 utilizing any one of a number of conventional authentication algorithms, e.g., EAP-Cisco Wireless, or a certificate-based scheme such as EAP-TLS.).
Regarding claim 4, Halasz teaches: wherein the identifier is unique to the electronic device ([0003] Access can be restricted by any number of methods, including user logins and passwords, network identification of a unique identification number embedded within the network interface card, call-back schemes for dial-up access, and others.).
Regarding claim 5, Halasz teaches: wherein the identifier is in the form of a unique Media Access Control (MAC) address (Claim 11, The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first address is a Media Access Control (MAC) address and the client address is a MAC address.).
Regarding claim 6, Halasz teaches: wherein the wireless device transmits a connection request to the ubiquitous wireless network when attempting to gain network access ([0015] Authentication occurs primarily at system initialization time, or when a supplicant (such as the AP 102, or wireless client 104) requests connection to a port of an authenticator system or when authorized access has been become unauthorized, and subsequently needs to be reauthorized.).
Regarding claim 7, Halasz does not explicitly teach: wherein the one of the plurality access points that handles the connection request issues a notification to the remainder of the plurality of access points that the connection request has been handled.
However, in the same field of endeavor Ahmed teaches: wherein the one of the plurality access points that handles the connection request issues a notification to the remainder of the plurality of access points that the connection request has been handled ([0030] Authentication signaling will commence if there is not a match or if device 16 desires a data exchange with the access point 12c. Access point 12c sends an update notification message 508 to master access point 12a indicating that device 16 is now associated with access point 12c. In the case where there is no master access point, access point 12c sends an update notification message 510 to the group.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Halasz to include the feature of notifying other APs and a combination of Halasz with Almed renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., notifying other APs).
Regarding claim 8, Halasz does not teach: if a notification that the connection request has been handled is not received by the plurality of access points, access to the ubiquitous wireless network is provided to the wireless device via one of the plurality of access points that is not cross-referenced with the identifier for the wireless device in the lookup table.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ahmed teaches: if a notification that the connection request has been handled is not received by the plurality of access points, access to the ubiquitous wireless network is provided to the wireless device via one of the plurality of access points that is not cross-referenced with the identifier for the wireless device in the lookup table ([0030] Authentication signaling will commence if there is not a match or if device 16 desires a data exchange with the access point 12 c.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Halasz to include the feature of authenticating when a match does not exist and a combination of Halasz with Almed renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., authenticating when a match does not exist).
Regarding claim 9, Halasz teaches: wherein network resources comprise network services ([0029] In a function block 302, the AP 102 restructures the client traffic, and forwards the traffic through the switch 100 to the AS 106. As mentioned hereinabove, once the AP 102 becomes a trusted entity, subsequent packet traffic therefrom moves unimpeded through the switch 100 to the AS 106, and other network services.).
Regarding claim 10, Halasz teaches: wherein network services comprise internet services ([0014] Additionally, the network 109 can be a global communication network, e.g., the Internet, such that authentication occurs over great distances from a remote location disposed thereon to the AS 106.).
Regarding claim 11, Halasz teaches: wherein network resources comprise network devices ([0005] authorizing devices attached to a switch port that has point-to-point connection characteristics. Thus in existing IEEE 802.1x implementations, when a network device designed as an access point (AP) comes online, the AP authenticates through the switch to an authentication server. When properly authenticated, the switch port becomes “opened” up for that authenticated AP.).
Regarding claim 12, Halasz teaches: wherein network devices comprise network printers ([0005] authorizing devices attached to a switch port that has point-to-point connection characteristics. Thus in existing IEEE 802.1x implementations, when a network device designed as an access point (AP) comes online, the AP authenticates through the switch to an authentication server. When properly authenticated, the switch port becomes “opened” up for that authenticated AP. See also, NPL entitled, “Cisco NAC Authenticating Printers and other Devices - Cisco Community”).
Regarding claim 13, Halasz teaches: wherein the selection of the plurality of access points cross- referenced with the identifier for the wireless device is retrieved from the lookup table using one of a direct database lookup ([0017] AS database), an Application Programming Interface (API) request, and a Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) access request (The AS 106 can be configured to run a RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service) protocol for authentication and authorization services.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publication No. 2013/0103836 (Baniqued) related to centralized configuration with dynamic distributed address management
U.S. Publication No. 2021/0099876 A1 (Neipris) related to wireless network provisioning using a pre-shared key
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN BARRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0201. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am EST to 5:00pm 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, Jinsong HU can be reached at (571) 272-3965. 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.
/JAB/ Examiner, Art Unit 2643
/JINSONG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights