Detailed Action
This is a Non-final Office action in response to communications received on 4/8/2025. Claims 1-38 were cancelled and claims 39-57 were added via preliminary amendment. Claims 39-57 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings, filed 4/8/2025, are acknowledged.
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment, filed 4/8/2025, is acknowledged.
Examiner Note
Claim 49 recites “the wireless local area network operates according to a standard of 802.11”. Applicant’s specification makes reference to “one or more communication standards promulgated by the Institute of Electrical an Electronics Engineers, IEEE, such as any 802.11 standard” . Examiner interprets “standard of 802.11” in light of this interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 39-50 and 52-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ding (US 20140136844 A1).
Regarding claim 39, Ding teaches the limitations of claim 39 substantially as follows:
A first apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the first apparatus at least to: (Ding; [0245]: implemented in the form of a software functional unit and sold or used as a separate product, the integrated unit may be stored in a computer-readable storage medium)
perform a first authentication procedure between the first apparatus and a second apparatus in a wireless local area network; wherein a first identification information of the first apparatus is assigned during the first authentication procedure. (Ding; [0080]: The AP sends a fourth authentication message to the STA, where the fourth authentication message includes an EAP-Success message (i.e., authentication procedure between apparatuses), an association identifier AID allocated by the AP for the STA (i.e., identification information assigned during procedure))
Regarding claim 40, Ding teaches the limitations of claim 39.
Ding teaches the limitations of claim 40 as follows:
The first apparatus according to claim 39, wherein the first identification information comprises an identification information element, IE, indicating a first identifier, ID of the first apparatus, or a first random media access control address (RMA) of the first apparatus. (Ding; [0080]: The AP sends a fourth authentication message to the STA, where the fourth authentication message includes an EAP-Success message, an association identifier AID allocated by the AP for the STA (i.e., identification information element, IE, indicating a first identifier, ID of the first apparatus))
Regarding claim 41, Ding teaches the limitations of claim 39.
Ding teaches the limitations of claim 41 as follows:
The first apparatus according to claim 39, wherein the first apparatus is further caused to perform: transmit, to the second apparatus, a first message of the first authentication procedure; receive, from the second apparatus, a second message of the first authentication procedure; and transmit, to the second apparatus, a third message of the first authentication procedure. (Ding; [0019]; Fig. 2: First authentication message S110, Second authentication message S120, third authentication message S140)
Regarding claim 42, Ding teaches the limitations of claim 41.
Ding teaches the limitations of claim 42 as follows:
The first apparatus according to claim 39, wherein the first identification information of the first apparatus is assigned by the second apparatus; and (Ding; [0080]: The AP sends a fourth authentication message to the STA, where the fourth authentication message includes an EAP-Success message, an association identifier AID allocated by the AP for the STA (i.e., the first identification information of the first apparatus is assigned by the second apparatus))
wherein the first apparatus is further caused to: receive, from the second apparatus, the first identification information of the first apparatus in the second message of the first authentication procedure, or at least one parameter to generate the first identification information based on a predefined equation. (Ding; [0019]; Fig. 2: First authentication message S110, Second authentication message including an ANonce (i.e., parameter) S120, third authentication message S140)
Regarding claim 43, Ding teaches the limitations of claim 41.
Ding teaches the limitations of claim 43 as follows:
The first apparatus according to claim 41, wherein the first apparatus is further caused to: assign the first identification information of the first apparatus. (Ding; [0080]: The AP sends a fourth authentication message to the STA, where the fourth authentication message includes an EAP-Success message, an association identifier AID allocated by the AP for the STA (i.e., assign the first identification information of the first apparatus))
Regarding claim 44, Ding teaches the limitations of claim 43.
Ding teaches the limitations of claim 44 as follows:
The first apparatus according to claim 43, wherein the first apparatus is further caused to: transmit, to the second apparatus, the first identification information of the first apparatus in the first or third message of the first authentication procedure; or transmit, to the second apparatus, one or more parameters for the first apparatus and the second apparatus, wherein the one or more parameters are intended to be used to generate the first identification information based on a predefined equation. (Ding; [0019]; Fig. 2: First authentication message including a user identifier (i.e., parameter) S110, Second authentication message S120, third authentication message S140)
Regarding claim 45, Ding teaches the limitations of claim 39.
Ding teaches the limitations of claim 45 as follows:
The first apparatus according to claim 39, wherein the at least one processor; and the at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the first apparatus to: perform a second authentication procedure between the first apparatus and the second apparatus. (Ding; [0007]: After the EAP authentication is completed, the AP acquires the PMK from the AS, and the STA is capable of obtaining a PMK through calculation. Then, based on the PMKs, the STA and the AP perform a four-way handshake procedure to negotiate a pairwise transient key (PTK) (i.e., second authentication procedure))
Regarding claim 46, Ding teaches the limitations of claim 45.
Ding teaches the limitations of claim 46 as follows:
The first apparatus according to claim 45, wherein the at least one processor; and the at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the first apparatus to: transmit, to the second apparatus, a first message of the second authentication procedure including the first identification information of the first apparatus; and/or transmit, to the second apparatus, a third message of the second authentication procedure including the first identification information of the first apparatus. (Ding; [0007]: After the EAP authentication is completed, the AP acquires the PMK from the AS, and the STA is capable of obtaining a PMK through calculation. Then, based on the PMKs, the STA and the AP perform a four-way handshake procedure to negotiate a pairwise transient key (PTK). The PTK is practically used to protect air interface communication between the STA and the AP. The four-way handshake includes four messages (i.e., at least three messages))
Regarding claim 47, Ding teaches the limitations of claim 46.
Ding teaches the limitations of claim 47 as follows:
The first apparatus according to claim 46, wherein the at least one processor; and the at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the first apparatus to: receive, from the second apparatus, a second message of the second authentication procedure including a second identification information, or at least one parameter to generate the second identification information based on predefined equation; or transmit, to the second apparatus, the third message of the second authentication procedure including the second identification information. (Ding; [0007]: After the EAP authentication is completed, the AP acquires the PMK from the AS, and the STA is capable of obtaining a PMK through calculation. Then, based on the PMKs, the STA and the AP perform a four-way handshake procedure to negotiate a pairwise transient key (PTK). The PTK is practically used to protect air interface communication between the STA and the AP. The four-way handshake includes four messages (i.e., at least three messages))
Regarding claim 48, Ding teaches the limitations of claim 46.
Ding teaches the limitations of claim 48 as follows:
The first apparatus according to claim 46, wherein a second message of the second authentication procedure includes a status code to indicate a success or a failure of an identification of the first apparatus. (Ding; [0008]: After the four-way handshake is performed successfully, the STA generally acquires an IP address according to the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP). The procedure may include four messages. The STA sends a DHCP Discovery message through broadcast; a DHCP server on the network side receives the DHCP Discovery message and returns a DHCP Offer message to the STA, where the DHCP Offer message includes an IP address allocated by the DHCP server to the STA (i.e., indication))
Regarding claim 49, Ding teaches the limitations of claim 48.
Ding teaches the limitations of claim 49 as follows:
The first apparatus according to claim 48, wherein the wireless local area network operates according to a standard of 802.11; wherein the first apparatus comprises a non access point station (STA); wherein the second apparatus comprises an access point (AP); and/or wherein the first apparatus is un-associated with the second apparatus. (Ding; [0006]: The AP may further send an EAP-Success message to the STA to end the EAP authentication procedure. In the 802.11 specification, most functions of the AS are realized in the AP)
Regarding claim 50, Ding teaches the limitations of claim 49.
Ding teaches the limitations of claim 50 as follows:
The first apparatus according to claim 49, wherein the second apparatus is a first AP in an extended service set (ESS); and wherein the ESS further comprises a second AP and a third AP. (Ding; [0037]: FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of WiFi network architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 1, one AS may serve one or more APs, one DHCP server may serve one or more APs, multiple ASs may exist on a network, and multiple DHCP servers may exist on the network.)
Regarding claim 52, Ding teaches the limitations of claim 52 substantially as follows:
A method, comprising: performing a first authentication procedure between a first apparatus and a second apparatus in a wireless local area network; wherein a first identification information of the first apparatus is assigned during the first authentication procedure. (Ding; [0080]: The AP sends a fourth authentication message to the STA, where the fourth authentication message includes an EAP-Success message (i.e., authentication procedure between apparatuses), an association identifier AID allocated by the AP for the STA (i.e., identification information assigned during procedure))
Regarding claim 53, Ding teaches the limitations of claim 53 substantially as follows:
A second apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the second apparatus at least to: (Ding; [0245]: implemented in the form of a software functional unit and sold or used as a separate product, the integrated unit may be stored in a computer-readable storage medium)
perform a first authentication procedure between a first apparatus and the second apparatus in a wireless local area network; wherein a first identification information of the first apparatus is assigned during the first authentication procedure. (Ding; [0080]: The AP sends a fourth authentication message to the STA, where the fourth authentication message includes an EAP-Success message (i.e., authentication procedure between apparatuses), an association identifier AID allocated by the AP for the STA (i.e., identification information assigned during procedure))
Regarding claim 54, Ding teaches the limitations of claim 53.
Ding teaches the limitations of claim 54 as follows:
The second apparatus according to claim 53, wherein the first identification information comprises an identification information element, IE, indicating a first identifier, ID, of the first apparatus, or a first random media access control address, RMA, of the first apparatus. (Ding; [0080]: The AP sends a fourth authentication message to the STA, where the fourth authentication message includes an EAP-Success message, an association identifier AID allocated by the AP for the STA (i.e., identification information element, IE, indicating a first identifier, ID of the first apparatus))
Regarding claim 55, Ding teaches the limitations of claim 53.
Ding teaches the limitations of claim 55 as follows:
The second apparatus according to claim 53, wherein the first authentication procedure performed by the second apparatus further comprises: receive, from the first apparatus, a first message of the first authentication procedure; transmit, to the first apparatus, a second message of the first authentication procedure; and receive, from the first apparatus, a third message of the first authentication procedure. (Ding; [0019]; Fig. 2: First authentication message S110, Second authentication message S120, third authentication message S140)
Regarding claim 56, Ding teaches the limitations of claim 55.
Ding teaches the limitations of claim 56 as follows:
The second apparatus according to claim 55, wherein the first identification information of the first apparatus is assigned by the second apparatus; and (Ding; [0080]: The AP sends a fourth authentication message to the STA, where the fourth authentication message includes an EAP-Success message, an association identifier AID allocated by the AP for the STA (i.e., the first identification information of the first apparatus is assigned by the second apparatus))
wherein the at least one processor; and the at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the second apparatus to: transmit, to the first apparatus, the first identification information of the first apparatus in the second message of the first authentication procedure, or at least one parameter to generate the first identification information based on predefined equation. (Ding; [0007]: After the EAP authentication is completed, the AP acquires the PMK from the AS, and the STA is capable of obtaining a PMK through calculation. Then, based on the PMKs, the STA and the AP perform a four-way handshake procedure to negotiate a pairwise transient key (PTK). The PTK is practically used to protect air interface communication between the STA and the AP. The four-way handshake includes four messages (i.e., at least three messages))
Regarding claim 57, Ding teaches the limitations of claim 56.
Ding teaches the limitations of claim 57 as follows:
The second apparatus according to claim 56, wherein the first identification information of the first apparatus is assigned by the first apparatus. (Ding; [0080]: The AP sends a fourth authentication message to the STA, where the fourth authentication message includes an EAP-Success message, an association identifier AID allocated by the AP for the STA (i.e., assign the first identification information of the first apparatus))
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.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (US 20140136844 A1), as applied to independent claims, in view of Hamilton (US 20210385728 A1).
Regarding claim 51, Ding teaches the limitations of claim 50.
Ding does not teach the limitations of claim 51 as follows:
The first apparatus according to claim 50, wherein the first apparatus is further caused to: use the first identification information or a second identification information in a third authentication procedure between the first apparatus and the second AP; and use the first or second identification information in a fourth authentication procedure between the first apparatus and the third AP.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hamilton discloses the limitations of claim 51 as follows:
The first apparatus according to claim 50, wherein the first apparatus is further caused to: use the first identification information or a second identification information in a third authentication procedure between the first apparatus and the second AP; and use the first or second identification information in a fourth authentication procedure between the first apparatus and the third AP. (Hamilton; [0109]-[0110]: the access point 115 (e.g., unique identifier exchange module 415 of FIG. 4) may retrieve the unique identifier from the unique identifier response and store the unique identifier (e.g., within the unique identifier data store 420 of FIG. 4) as the identifier to be used for the station 105. It will be appreciated that the access point 115 may then provide a variety of features (i.e., use identifier in future authentication procedures); If, at 1025, the determination is made that the unique identifier is already stored at the access point, the process 1000 may proceed to 1035. At 1035, the access point 115 may use authorization(s) and/or behavior(s) used during a previous association between the access point 115 and the station (i.e., third and fourth authentication procedures))
Hamilton is combinable with Ding because all are from the same field of endeavor of device identification. Therefore, 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 system of Ding to incorporate storage of an identifier for use in future authentication procedures as in Hamilton for efficient reauthentication between devices.
Prior Art Considered But Not Relied Upon
Ho (US 20210282007 A1) which teaches wireless communication performed by a wireless communication device. An example wireless communication device includes an access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD).
Ghosh (US 20170374684 A1) which teaches identifier assignment for unassociated stations (STAs).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE ISAAC NARRAMORE whose telephone number is (303)297-4357. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 0700-1700 MT.
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, Taghi T Arani can be reached on (571) 272-3787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BLAKE I NARRAMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights