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 .
This Office Action is in response to Application No. 19/239,056 filed on 06/16/2025.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“AAA server 112” in para [0068], [0092], and [00239], where the corresponding component appears to be AAA server 130.
“may information” in para [0074] and [0077] instead of “may include information.”
“instructions 1722 is included,” which should be “instructions 1722 are included.”
Duplicate wording such as “the policy may include the policy may include.” In para [0060]. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 states: “comprising: by an electronic device:”. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation is read as follow: “comprising, by an electronic device:”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 12-14, and 17:
Claims 1, 12-14, and 17 require obtaining information specifying a “persona group”. “Persona group” does not have an identified art-recognized meaning, and the specification does not provide a consistent definition. The specification alternatively describes a persona group as belonging to a single user, containing multiple personas associated with different individuals, representing a nonpersonal group of equipment, and including authentication techniques, attributes, and associated devices. Consequently, it is unclear what relationship or data organization constitutes the claimed persona group and what must be specified by the obtained information.
Furthermore, the limitation “applying … attributes or characteristics of the persona group to the set of second electronic devices” does not define the claimed operation with reasonable clarity. The specification uses “attributes or characteristics” to encompass authentication rules, network assignments, services, locations, access restrictions, filter identifiers, data rates, and unspecified characteristics outside security or authentication. The specification also uses “applying” to encompass storing associations, communicating policy information, assigning network segments, configuring network components, and enforcing access restrictions. It is therefore unclear what information qualifies as an attribute or characteristic “of” the persona group and what operation constitutes applying that information to a device.
Regarding claim 4:
Claim 4 recites “security parameter” but does not identify the required parameter or class of parameters. The specification repeats the term without defining it or providing an objective boundary distinguishing a security parameter from other credentials, authentication rules, network attributes, and access-control settings.
Regarding claim 5:
Claim 5 recites: “the attributes or characteristics comprise at least selectively disabling access…”. An “attribute or characteristic” is a noun or stored property, while “selectively disabling” is an operation. It is unclear whether the claimed attribute is: an access control rule; an enabled or disabled state; an instruction to disable access; or the actual act of disabling access. The Applicant may wish to amend the claim as follow: “wherein the attributes or characteristics comprise an access control rule configured to cause access to the network by the set of second electronic devices to be selectively disabled.”
Regarding claims 10 and 20:
Claims 1, 14 and 17 require: “an identifier of a user associated with the set…” However, claims 10 and 20 further limit the identifier to comprise: “a MAC address or a … VNI.” A MAC address ordinarily identifies a device/interface, while a VNI identifies a virtual network. The claim is unclear whether the claimed identifier directly identifies the user; identifies a device assigned to the user; identifies a network assigned to the user; or merely serves as a lookup key associated with the user. The disclosure supports an association between these identifiers and a user/persona group, but the claim should say so expressly. For example: “wherein the identifier comprises a MAC address of an electronic device associated with the user or a VNI assigned to the user or persona group.”
Claim 1 states that the claimed electronic device performs the operation of authenticating the second electronic device. Claim 11 states that: “the authentication comprises communication with a computer that performs the authentication…” This creates uncertainty over whether the claimed electronic device performs authentication; the separate computer performs authentication; or the claimed electronic device merely requests or facilitates authentication. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-13, 15-16, and 18-19 fail to overcome the grounds of rejection issued for claims 1, 14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and incorporate the same limitations for which claims 1, 14, and 17 have been rejected. The same reasoning and factual bases set forth for the rejection of claims 1, 14, and 17 are equally applicable to claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-13, 15-16, and 18-19.
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.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s)
authenticating, using an associated authentication technique, a given second electronic device in a set of second electronic devices to a network,
obtaining, based at least in part on an identifier of a user associated with the set of second electronic devices, information specifying the persona group;
applying, based at least in part on the information, the attributes or characteristics of the persona group to the set of second electronic devices...
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 7:
Applying the Alice/Mayo framework:
Step 1 – Statutory Category:
Claim 17 is drafted as a method claim (“A method …for applying attributes or characteristics of a persona group”) and the dependent claims also include method forms. These fall within the statutory categories of “machine”,” manufacture”, and “process”. Accordingly, the claim meets the threshold requirements of being directed to a statutory class of invention under §101. Analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong One — Whether the Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception:
Under Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014), and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012), the first inquiry is whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea. The present claim recites the steps of obtaining, based at least in part on an identifier of a user associated with the set of second electronic devices, information specifying a persona group; and applying, based at least in part on the information, attributes or characteristics of the persona group to the set of second electronic devices. These limitations describe concepts that can be practically performed through human observation, evaluation, judgment, and decision making. For example, a network administrator can identify information associated with a user, consult records identifying devices belonging to that user or group, identify rules or policies assigned to that group, and determine that the same rules or policies are to be applied to the devices associated with the group. The fact that the claimed operations are performed using an electronic device does not remove the underlying concept from the mental process grouping where the computer is merely used as a tool to perform the evaluation and administration. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) explains that a claim requiring a computer may nevertheless recite a mental process when the underlying evaluation can be performed by a human and the computer is merely used as a tool to perform that concept. The focus of the claimed concept is the administrative organization of devices based on user associated information and the assignment or administration of common rules or attributes to those devices. Accordingly, claims 1, 14, and 17 recite an abstract idea falling within the mental processes grouping.
Step 2A, Prong Two — Whether the Claim Integrates the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
The claim’s additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of claim 1 include an interface circuit, processor, memory storing program instructions, communication with electronic devices, and authentication of an electronic device to a network. Claims 14 and 17 similarly require implementation of the abstract concept using an electronic device and computer-readable instructions. These limitations merely provide a generic technological environment in which the abstract group management and policy administration process is performed. The claims do not recite a particular improvement to the processor, memory, interface circuit, network, authentication protocol, cryptographic operation, routing operation, switching operation, or other underlying technology. MPEP § 2106.04(d) explains that merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or generally linking the abstract idea to a technological environment does not integrate the exception into a practical application. The claims do not, for example, require: a new authentication protocol; a new cryptographic operation; or a particular technical mechanism that increases network speed, reliability, security, throughput, or computational efficiency. Instead, the claimed electronic components perform their ordinary functions of communicating information, storing information, retrieving information, authenticating devices, and executing instructions so that common administrative policies can be applied to a logical group. The current USPTO guidance requires consideration of any asserted technological improvement, but the claim itself must reflect the components or steps that provide that improvement. A claim that merely recites the idea of a desired result, rather than a particular technological manner of achieving that result, does not establish an improvement to technology. MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Step 2B — Inventive Concept or “Significantly More”
Under the second step of the Alice/Mayo test, consideration is given to whether any element or combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements include generic processors, memory, interface circuitry, electronic devices, access points, switches, controllers, computer network devices, wired and wireless communication, memory lookups, communication with an authentication computer, and conventional authentication techniques recited at a high level of generality, which perform generic computer functions, including receive, store, retrieve, process, or communicate the information used. Such limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer. Considered individually, these additional elements perform their ordinary computer and network functions. Considered as an ordered combination, the claims likewise do no more than use generic computer components to implement the abstract idea. Under Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ( generic data processing), such generic data processing does not supply an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim lacks an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application.
Regarding claims 2, 15 and 18:
Claims 2, 15 and 18 add wherein the attributes or characteristics comprise authentication rules. It adds no specific algorithm or improvement to computer or network operation. It merely further define the information, policies, rules, authentication techniques, identifiers, or logical-group operations used in carrying out the abstract idea and therefore do not provide a technological improvement and, under Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019), does not supply an inventive concept or render the claim eligible under §101.
Regarding claim 3:
Claim 3 adds wherein the authentication rules comprise a pool of dynamic pre-shared keys (DPSKs) for use by the set of second electronic devices. It adds no specific algorithm or improvement to computer or network operation. It merely further define the information, policies, rules, authentication techniques, identifiers, or logical-group operations used in carrying out the abstract idea and therefore do not provide a technological improvement and, under Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019), does not supply an inventive concept or render the claim eligible under §101.
Regarding claim 4:
Claim 4 adds wherein the authentication rules comprise: a security parameter, a time-of-day constraint on access to the network, a location constraint on access to the network, or a set of networks that allow access by the set of second electronic devices. It adds no specific algorithm or improvement to computer or network operation. It merely further define the information, policies, rules, authentication techniques, identifiers, or logical-group operations used in carrying out the abstract idea and therefore do not provide a technological improvement and, under Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019), does not supply an inventive concept or render the claim eligible under §101.
Regarding claim 5:
Claim 5 adds wherein the attributes or characteristics comprise at least selectively disabling access to the network by the set of second electronic devices. It adds no specific algorithm or improvement to computer or network operation. It merely further define the information, policies, rules, authentication techniques, identifiers, or logical-group operations used in carrying out the abstract idea and therefore do not provide a technological improvement and, under Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019), does not supply an inventive concept or render the claim eligible under §101.
Regarding claims 6, 16 and 19:
Claims 6, 16 and 19 add wherein the different authentication techniques comprise: dynamic pre-shared key (DPSK) authentication, media access control (MAC)- based authentication, certificate-based authentication, or subscriber identification module (SIM)-based authentication. It adds no specific algorithm or improvement to computer or network operation. It merely further define the information, policies, rules, authentication techniques, identifiers, or logical-group operations used in carrying out the abstract idea and therefore do not provide a technological improvement and, under Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019), does not supply an inventive concept or render the claim eligible under §101.
Regarding claim 7:
Claim 7 adds wherein the electronic device comprises a controller in or associated with the network. These limitations merely specify generic machinery used as a tool to carry out the abstract idea and therefore do not integrate the exception into a practical application. and, under Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019), does not supply an inventive concept or render the claim eligible under §101.
Regarding claim 8:
Claim 8 adds wherein the electronic device comprises an access point, a switch or a computer network device in the network. These limitations merely specify generic machinery used as a tool to carry out the abstract idea and therefore do not integrate the exception into a practical application. and, under Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019), does not supply an inventive concept or render the claim eligible under §101.
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 adds wherein at least a second electronic device in the set of second electronic devices is configured to communicate using wired communication and at least another second electronic device in the set of second electronic devices is configured to communicate using wireless communication. It merely restricts the technological environment in which the abstract group-management policy is applied and does not recite an improvement to wired or wireless communication itself and, under Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019), does not supply an inventive concept or render the claim eligible under §101.
Regarding claims 10 and 20:
Claims 10 and 20 add wherein the identifier comprises a MAC address or a virtual extensible local area network (VxLAN) network identifier (VNI). It merely further define the information, policies, rules, authentication techniques, identifiers, or logical-group operations used in carrying out the abstract idea and therefore do not provide a technological improvement and, under Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019), does not supply an inventive concept or render the claim eligible under §101.
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 adds wherein the authentication comprises communication with a computer that performs the authentication and provides the identifier. It merely recites conventional data gathering and communication used to obtain information needed for the subsequent group identification and policy administration and, under Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019), does not supply an inventive concept or render the claim eligible under §101.
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 adds wherein the information specifying the persona group is obtained by performing a look-up operation in memory based at least in part on the identifier. It merely further define the information, policies, rules, authentication techniques, identifiers, or logical-group operations used in carrying out the abstract idea and therefore do not provide a technological improvement and, under Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019), does not supply an inventive concept or render the claim eligible under §101.
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 adds wherein, in response to authentication of a third electronic device to the network, the third electronic device is added to the set of second electronic devices and the persona group. It merely further define the information, policies, rules, authentication techniques, identifiers, or logical-group operations used in carrying out the abstract idea and therefore do not provide a technological improvement and, under Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019), does not supply an inventive concept or render the claim eligible under §101.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0272089 A1 from IDS dated 11/25/2025; Hereinafter “Mohammed;”) in view of Mishra et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11562062 B1; Hereinafter “Mishra”).
As per claims 1, 14, and 17, Mohammed teaches an electronic device, comprising (Mohammed describes an electronic device such as an AAA server, controller, access point, switch, or other network device having a processing subsystem, memory subsystem, and networking subsystem including an interface circuit. See Mohammed, para [0038], [0291-0296], and [0308-0314]):
an interface circuit configured to communicate with a set of second electronic devices (Mohammed teaches an interface circuit of an AAA server or other network device communicating, through a computer network device or access point, with electronic devices seeking network access. Mohammed further teaches identifying which electronic devices form a common PAN and communicating network-access information and policy attributes for those devices, See para [0038-0041], [0092-0094], [0197-0199], and [0291-0296]);
a processor coupled to the interface circuit; and memory, coupled to the processor, configured to store program instructions, wherein, in response to execution by the processor, the program instructions cause the electronic device to perform operations comprising (Mohammed, para [0038], [0291-0296], and [0308-0314]):
authenticating, using an associated authentication technique, a given second electronic device in the set of second electronic devices to a network (Mohammed teaches receives authentication parameters associated with a user and confirms the authentication parameters to determine whether there is an authentication match. The authentication parameters may include passphrase parameters, an authentication certificate, or a MAC address. The MAC address of the second electronic device is bound to or associated with the passphrase in the electronic device, so that the second electronic device can be authenticated by the electronic device on subsequent occasions. When authentication succeeds and applicable policy criteria are met, Mohammed provides an access acceptance message for establishing secure network access. See para [0038-0046], [0093-0094], [0130-0134], and [0272-0277]. Mohammed also teaches that the authenticated device may be included in a group of electronic devices associated with the user, including devices belonging to a common PAN or group identifier. See para [0040], [0132], [162], [0198-0199], [0242-0245], and [0260-0262]. Mohammed further teaches several different available authentication techniques, including DPSK authentication, EAP/PEAP authentication, TLS certificate-based authentication, and MAC authentication. See para [0039-0046], [0267], [0272]);
obtaining, based at least in part on an identifier of a user associated with the set of second electronic devices, information specifying a persona group (Mohammed teaches that information associated with a user may include a username or an identifier of a group that includes the user. Mohammed further teaches performing a lookup based on the user identifier to access a policy associated with the user. See para [0048], [0115], [0219-0224], and [0273-0276]. Mohammed also teaches user associated group information defining the electronic devices that form a PAN. For example, a group identifier identifies the guest’s PAN, a VNI identifies the virtual network for a group, and the AAA server maintains active sessions corresponding to the devices joined by each user. See para [0189-0191], [0197-0199], [0231-0245], and [0260-0263]. This stored user group identifier, device group membership, PAN/VNI assignment, and associated policy collectively correspond to the claimed information specifying the persona group.); and
applying, based at least in part on the information, attributes or characteristics of the persona group to the set of second electronic devices (Mohammed teaches that devices belonging to the same user associated group receive the same network services. The devices may be placed on the same VLAN or VNI, receive the same privileges, be permitted or denied access to specified servers, receive a common data rate limitation, and have their traffic bridged within the same PAN. See para [0092-0094], [0198-0199], [0231-0245], and [0260-0262]. Mohammed further teaches a policy engine that determines RADIUS attributes based on inputs associated with a user, user device, access point, or controller, returns the RADIUS attributes to the network components, and causes the policy to be applied. See para [0293-0301]).
Mohammed does not expressly teach at least some second electronic devices in the set of second electronic devices use different authentication techniques to authenticate to the network.
However, in the related art, Mishra teaches wherein at least some second electronic devices in the set of second electronic devices use different authentication techniques to authenticate to the network (Mishra teaches a network device that authenticates a first user device using a determined authentication method, establishes an authenticated communication session for the first user device, authenticates an additional user device using an additional authentication method, and establishes an additional authenticated communication session for the additional device through the same network device port “the network device may use an IEEE 802.1x authentication method as the authentication method to authenticate the first user device and a web-based authentication method to authenticate the second user device”. See Mishra, col. 8 line 8-20 and 49-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mohammed’s user associated group authentication system, as taught by Mishra, to authenticate respective electronic devices associated with the user using different authentication techniques, it would allow heterogeneous devices having different authentication capabilities to obtain authenticated network access while retaining Mohammed’s common user associated PAN, network segmentation, services, and policy enforcement (Mishra, col. 2).
Furthermore, Mohammed also teaches the hardware components of claim 14 such as a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for use in conjunction with an electronic device, the computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions that, in response to execution by the electronic device (Mohammed, para [0023], [0034], [0061], and [0308-0312]).
As per claims 2, 15, and 18, Mohammed in view of Mishra teaches the independent claim 1. Mohammed teaches wherein the attributes or characteristics comprise authentication rules (Mohammed teaches that the policy may be a set of conditions, constraints, and settings (or rules) that allow one to designate who is authorized to connect to the network and the circumstances under which they can connect. The policy defines conditions under which authentication parameters are valid, whether access is permitted, the network to which the device is assigned, and the RADIUS attributes returned to the access point or controller. See para [0043], [0046-0049], [0093-0094], [162], [0293-0301]).
As per claim 3, Mohammed in view of Mishra teaches the dependent claim 2. Mohammed teaches wherein the authentication rules comprise a pool of dynamic pre-shared keys (DPSKs) for use by the set of second electronic devices (Mohammed teaches a pool of DPSKs for use in authenticating electronic devices. Mohammed teaches a user associated group DPSK, stored passphrases, and pools of passphrases associated with different networks. See para [0040], [0042-0043], [0132], [0198-0199], and [0279])
As per claim 4, Mohammed in view of Mishra teaches the dependent claim 3. Mohammed teaches wherein the authentication rules comprise: a security parameter, a time-of-day constraint on access to the network, a location constraint on access to the network, or a set of networks that allow access by the set of second electronic devices (Mohammed teaches that the authentication or access rules may comprise: a security or authentication parameter, including a passphrase, certificate, MAC address, or cryptographic information; a time-of-day or temporal constraint; a location constraint; and a set of networks that the device or user is permitted to access, see para [0039-048], [0121], [0135], [0139], [0274-0275], and [0279]).
As per claim 5, Mohammed in view of Mishra teaches the independent claim 1. Mohammed teaches wherein the attributes or characteristics comprise at least selectively disabling access to the network by the set of second electronic devices (Mohammed teaches selectively disabling network access based on the applicable policy. Mohammed teaches that policies may enable or disable passphrases and, more generally, enable or disable access when applicable conditions are or are not satisfied. Mohammed also teaches withholding approval and not providing secure access when authentication or policy criteria are not met. See para [0055], [0133-0134], [0273-0277], and [0286].).
As per claims 6, 16, and 19, Mohammed in view of Mishra teaches the independent claim 1. Mohammed teaches wherein the different authentication techniques comprise: dynamic pre-shared key (DPSK) authentication, media access control (MAC)- based authentication, certificate-based authentication, or subscriber identification module (SIM)-based authentication (Mohammed teaches DPSK authentication, MAC-based authentication, and certificate-based authentication. Mohammed specifically discloses EAP, PEAP, TLS certificate based authentication, MAC authentication, and DPSK authentication. See para [0039]–[0046], [0267], [0272], and [0298]. See also Mohammed, claims 2–3 and 9–11. Mishra supplies the use of different respective authentication techniques by different devices, the network device may use an IEEE 802.1x authentication method as the authentication method to authenticate the first user device and a web-based authentication method to authenticate the second user device”. See Mishra, col. 8 line 8-20 and 49-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mohammed’s user associated group authentication system, as taught by Mishra, to authenticate respective electronic devices associated with the user using different authentication techniques, it would allow heterogeneous devices having different authentication capabilities to obtain authenticated network access while retaining Mohammed’s common user associated PAN, network segmentation, services, and policy enforcement (Mishra, col. 2).
As per claim 7, Mohammed in view of Mishra teaches the independent claim 1. Mohammed teaches wherein the electronic device comprises a controller in or associated with the network (Mohammed teaches that the electronic device may comprise or be included in a controller associated with the network. Mohammed discloses a cloud-based controller that manages or configures access points, radio nodes, and switches, and expressly states that the disclosed electronic device may be or may be included in a controller. See para [0097], [0190], [0301], and [0318].).
As per claim 8, Mohammed in view of Mishra teaches the independent claim 1. Mohammed teaches wherein the electronic device comprises an access point, a switch or a computer network device in the network (Mohammed teaches that the electronic device may comprise or be included in an access point, switch, router, controller, or other computer network device. See para [0038], [0092], [0097], [0308], and [0318].).
As per claim 9, Mohammed in view of Mishra teaches the independent claim 1. Mohammed teaches wherein at least a second electronic device in the set of second electronic devices is configured to communicate using wired communication and at least another second electronic device in the set of second electronic devices is configured to communicate using wireless communication (Mohammed teaches a user associated group containing wired and wireless electronic devices. Mohammed discloses wired set-top boxes connected through Ethernet ports, wireless devices connected through Wi-Fi, and expressly states that the communication techniques may be used with wired and/or wireless electronic devices. See para [0195-0197]. Mohammed further teaches placing electronic devices connected through Ethernet jacks or ports on the same VNI as wireless electronic devices, such that the wired and wireless devices associated with a given user are connected to the same virtual network. See para [0260-0263].).
As per claims 10 and 20, Mohammed in view of Mishra teaches the independent claim 1. Mohammed teaches wherein the identifier comprises a MAC address or a virtual extensible local area network (VxLAN) network identifier (VNI) (Mohammed teaches that an identifier associated with the user or user associated group may comprise a MAC address or VNI. Mohammed teaches using MAC addresses to identify electronic devices associated with the user and using a group identifier, VLAN identifier, or VNI to identify the user associated PAN or virtual network. See para [0041], [0181-0183], [0241-0245], and [0260-0264].).
As per claim 11, Mohammed in view of Mishra teaches the independent claim 1. Mohammed teaches wherein the authentication comprises communication with a computer that performs the authentication and provides the identifier (Mohammed teaches that an access point sends an authentication request to a DPSK server, the DPSK server authenticates the device, looks up an end-user identifier associated with the authentication information, and forwards the authentication request including the end-user identifier to an AAA server. See para [0219-0224]. Mohammed also teaches an access point forwarding authentication parameters to an AAA server, the AAA server comparing the parameters with stored information, and the AAA server providing an access-acceptance message including an applicable policy attribute. See para [0291-0296].).
As per claim 12, Mohammed in view of Mishra teaches the independent claim 1. Mohammed teaches wherein the information specifying the persona group is obtained by performing a look-up operation in memory based at least in part on the identifier (Mohammed teaches obtaining user group policy information through a lookup operation in memory based on an identifier. Mohammed expressly teaches the AAA server performing a lookup based on an identifier of the user, such as a username, to access the policy associated with the user. See para [0115]. Mohammed also teaches the AAA server accessing stored authentication information and policy information in memory and a PM server performing a memory lookup based on the user, device, location, or associated identifier. See para [0292-0295].).
As per claim 13, Mohammed in view of Mishra teaches the independent claim 1. Mohammed teaches wherein, in response to authentication of a third electronic device to the network, the third electronic device is added to the set of second electronic devices and the persona group (Mohammed teaches that, when another device authenticates, the device is identified as belonging to the user-associated group or PAN. Mohammed expressly describes a third end device connecting through another access point and, as a result of DPSK authentication, the access point being informed that the third device belongs to the group identifier assigned to the user. See para [0183] and [0245]. Mohammed further teaches that the AAA server maintains an active session corresponding to each device that the user joins to the network. See para [0189-0190]. Mishra similarly teaches authenticating an additional device and establishing an additional authenticated session for that device. Thus, the third device is added to the authenticated device set and associated group in response to successful authentication.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20150143395 A1, a system and method for navigating hypermedia using multiple coordinated input/output device sets. It provides a broadly flexible, powerful, selective, and simple user interface paradigm for browsing that allows the user (and/or an author) to control what resources are presented on which device sets (whether they are integrated or not), and provides an effective method for coordinating browsing activities to enable such a user interface to be employed across multiple independent systems.
US 20170187703 A1, A method and Network Element for Improved Access to communication Networks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYDIA L NOEL whose telephone number is (571)272-1628. The examiner can normally be reached Week 1-Monday: 8:00 AM 4:00 PM, Tuesday & Wednesday: 9:00 AM 3:00 PM. Week 2-Monday: 8:00 AM 4:00 PM, Tuesday through Thursday: 9:00 AM 1:00 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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at (571)-270-5143. 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.
/L.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/ALEXANDER LAGOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2437
