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 .
1. Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
2. Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim(s) 11-15 does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because of the reasons set forth below.
Claims 11-15 recite “computer readable storage media.” Applicant’s specification, in page paragraph [0059], discloses: A computer-readable storage medium may include, for example, but not limited to, an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, or device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing, but would not include propagating signals.
As such, computer readable storage media, as disclosed by Applicant’s specification, does not definitively exclude propagating signals, and may include transitory embodiment, which is nonstatutory.
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.
3. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 13, and15 of co-pending Application No. 18/999,608, in view of Nezou et al., (hereinafter, “Nezou”), WO-2025/061600 A1.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the above co-pending application recites most of limitations of claim 1 of the instant application.
However, claim 1 of the above co-pending application lacks determining, by the access point, for one or more epoch groups a number of wireless stations participating in each epoch group of the one or more epoch groups.
Nezou teaches determining, by the access point, for one or more epoch groups a number of wireless stations participating in each epoch group of the one or more epoch groups (i.e., Nezou, in page 15 lines 36-37, discloses the AP station calculates the number NSTA of non-AP stations. Nezou, in page 16 lines 6-7, further disclose NSTA is the number of non-AP stations within the reference privacy group).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified method recited in claim 1 of the above co-pending application to determine, by the access point, for one or more epoch groups a number of wireless stations participating in each epoch group of the one or more epoch groups, as taught by Nezou. One would be motivated to do so to allow the sizes of the groups to be appropriately adjusted (i.e., Nezou, page 5 lines 7-8).
Claim 3 of the above co-pending application recites every element of claim 2 of the instant application.
Claim 3 of the above co-pending application recites every element of claim 3 of the instant application.
Claim 5 of the above co-pending application recites every element of claim 4 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 6, claim 11 of the above co-pending application recites most of limitations of claim 6 of the instant application.
However, claim 11 of the above co-pending application lacks determining, by the access point, for one or more epoch groups a number of wireless stations participating in each epoch group of the one or more epoch groups.
Nezou teaches determining, by the access point, for one or more epoch groups a number of wireless stations participating in each epoch group of the one or more epoch groups (i.e., Nezou, in page 15 lines 36-37, discloses the AP station calculates the number NSTA of non-AP stations. Nezou, in page 16 lines 6-7, further disclose NSTA is the number of non-AP stations within the reference privacy group).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified a wireless access point recited in claim 6 of the above co-pending application to determine, by the access point, for one or more epoch groups a number of wireless stations participating in each epoch group of the one or more epoch groups, as taught by Nezou. One would be motivated to do so to allow the sizes of the groups to be appropriately adjusted (i.e., Nezou, page 5 lines 7-8).
Claim 13 of the above co-pending application recites every element of claim 7 of the instant application.
Claim 13 of the above co-pending application recites every element of claim 8 of the instant application.
Claim 15 of the above co-pending application recites every element of claim 9 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 6, claim 11 of the above co-pending application recites most of limitations of claim 6 of the instant application.
However, claim 11 of the above co-pending application lacks determining, by the access point, for one or more epoch groups a number of wireless stations participating in each epoch group of the one or more epoch groups.
Nezou teaches determining, by the access point, for one or more epoch groups a number of wireless stations participating in each epoch group of the one or more epoch groups (i.e., Nezou, in page 15 lines 36-37, discloses the AP station calculates the number NSTA of non-AP stations. Nezou, in page 16 lines 6-7, further disclose NSTA is the number of non-AP stations within the reference privacy group).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified a wireless access point recited in claim 6 of the above co-pending application to determine, by the access point, for one or more epoch groups a number of wireless stations participating in each epoch group of the one or more epoch groups, as taught by Nezou. One would be motivated to do so to allow the sizes of the groups to be appropriately adjusted (i.e., Nezou, page 5 lines 7-8).
Claims 11-14 recites one or more computer-readable storage media encoded with software comprising computer executable instructions and when the software is executed by processor in a wireless access point apparatus, cause the processor to perform method claims 1-4, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
Regarding claims 5, 10, and 15, claims 1-20 of the above co-pending application lacks the one or more epoch parameters are encrypted. However, Encryption is well-known in the art for protecting data.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
4. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron et al., (herein, “Baron”), US WO 2025/099056 A1, in view of Nezou et al, (herein, “Nezou”), WO-2025/061600 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Baron teaches a method (i.e., Fig. 9a) comprising:
transmitting, by an access point, one or more wireless frames advertising support for enhanced data privacy (EDP), wherein the one or more wireless frames indicate support for group-based EDP (i.e., a frame sent by an AP station to one or more non-AP stations to indicate the parameters of a Group Epoch series…called Group EDP Epoch advertisement, page 36 lines 8-12);
transmitting, by the access point, one or more epoch parameters associated with a plurality of epoch groups, wherein a first epoch parameter of the one or more epoch parameters comprises epoch timing information and a second epoch parameter indicates a number of wireless stations participating in the corresponding epoch group (i.e. sent by an AP station to one or more non-AP stations to indicate the parameters of a Group Epoch series, page 36 lines 8-18); and
receiving, by the access point, a wireless action frame transmitted by the wireless station, wherein the wireless action frame indicates a first epoch group of the plurality of epoch groups that the wireless station proposes to join (i.e., an EDP non-AP STA sends an EDP Epoch Sequence Response frame to acknowledge the membership of the Group DEP Epoch sequence, page 38 lines 4-11).
Baron does not explicitly teach determining, by the access point, for one or more epoch groups a number of wireless stations participating in each epoch group of the one or more epoch groups; and maintaining a wireless connection with the wireless station using a plurality of over-the-air (OTA) medium access control (MAC) addresses for the wireless station that are rotated at an epoch interval associated with the first epoch group.
Nezou teaches determining, by the access point, for one or more epoch groups a number of wireless stations participating in each epoch group of the one or more epoch groups (i.e. Nezou, in page 15 lines 36-37, discloses the AP station calculates the number NSTA of non-AP stations. Nezou, in page 16 lines 6-7, further disclose NSTA is the number of non-AP stations within the reference privacy group); maintaining a wireless connection with the wireless station using a plurality of over- the-air (OTA) medium access control (MAC) addresses for the wireless station that are rotated at an epoch interval associated with the first epoch group (i.e., Randomized and Changing MAC (RCM) procedure…conducted by AP to obfuscate the values of the PE parameters of all its associated non-AP stations (i.e., OTA MAC address, page 8 lines 29-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Baron to determine, by the access point, for one or more epoch groups a number of wireless stations participating in each epoch group of the one or more epoch groups; and maintain a wireless connection with the wireless station using a plurality of over- the-air (OTA) medium access control (MAC) addresses for the wireless station that are rotated at an epoch interval associated with the first epoch group, as taught by Nezou. One would be motivated to do so to allow the sizes of the groups to be adjusted (i.e., Nezou, page 5 lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 2, Baron teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the one or more wireless frames advertising support for enhanced data privacy (EDP) are beacon frames (i.e., beacon frame, page 25 lines 15-19).
Regarding claim 3, Baron teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the one or more wireless frames advertising support for enhanced data privacy (EDP) are wireless management frames (i.e., beacon frame, page 25 lines 15-19).
.
Regarding claim 4, Baron teaches the method of claim 1.
Baron does not explicitly teach wherein the second epoch parameter identifies a number of wireless stations participating in the corresponding epoch group.
Nezou teaches wherein the second epoch parameter identifies a number of wireless stations participating in the corresponding epoch group (i.e., the number of non-AP stations with the reference privacy group, page 16 lines 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Baron to identify a number of wireless stations participating in the corresponding epoch group, as taught by Nezou. One would be motivated to do so to allow the suitable sizes of the groups to be adjusted (i.e., Nezou, page 5 lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 5, Baron teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the one or more epoch parameters are encrypted (i.e., Epoch parameters can be sent in an encrypted IE, or encrypted frame, page 15 lines 16-17).
Regarding claims 6-10, those claims recite a wireless access point for performing method claims 1-5, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
Regarding claims 11-15, those claims recite one or more computer readable storage media encoded with software comprising computer executable instructions and when the software is executed by processor in a wireless access point apparatus, cause the processor to perform method claims 1-5, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Henry et al., US 2021/0360465 A1, discloses a method for identifying a station that rotates an over the air station address (i.e., abstract).
Sevin et al., US 2025/0071542 A1, discloses a method for changing the value of one or more privacy parameters, such as a MAC address, of target stations within a BSS, at both an AP station and a non-AP station associated with the AP station (i.e., abstract).
Jin et al., US 2013/0223306 A1, discloses, the AP may rotate amongst the groups of STAs to deliver all downlink traffic by controlling the group bits (i.e., page 4 paragraph [0065]).
Ansley, US 2024/0291797 A1, discloses a method and system for providing media access control address rotation (i.e., abstract).
Hornquist Astrand et al., US 2019/0286614 A1, discloses a peer device that wants to join a peer group obtains the most recent epoch period number from the synchronizing server set after it provides to the server set the necessary credentials to join the peer group (i.e., page 7 paragraph [0097]).
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OANH DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3983. The examiner can normally be reached Maxiflex Mon-Fri 6:00am-5:00pm.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571) 272-4170. 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.
/OANH DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights