DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in responsive to RCE for Application 18/056172 filed on 4/20/2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
3. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but prior to a decision on the appeal. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 4/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
4. Examiner statements in the mailed Final with respect to obvious limitations including common knowledge or well-known in the art are taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion, see MPEP 2144.03 C.
5. Applicant’s arguments in the amendment filed on 4/20/2026 regarding claim rejection under 35 USC § 112 & 102 are moot in view of the new ground of 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-6, 9-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over N et al. (hereinafter N) US 11323279 B1 in view of Lin et al. (hereinafter Lin) US 2021/0219135 A1.
Regarding claim 1, N teaches a method for communicating multicast traffic (Fig. 1A), the method comprising:
snooping, at a multi-link access point comprising a plurality of radio operating on a plurality of radio links (admitted prior art IEEE 802.11, see ¶0004), data received from a plurality of devices, the plurality of devices in wireless communication with the multi-link access point (Fig. 3, Col. 6 lines 49-67, Col. 10, line 38-67, Col. 16, lines 8-19; PE routers [access point] use IGMP snooping and SMET to determine the state of a multicast traffic and groups from a plurality of devices in a wireless network. Note that Fig. 1A-B provides a multicast source which includes at least; access network or multicast source or PE routers, see Col. 6, lines 57-67), wherein snooping the data comprises observing and processing frames received from the plurality of devices (Fig. 3 & Col. 9, lines 20-30; each of PE routers 10A-10G determine whether Ethernet frames can be sent directly to a particular one of the other PE routers 10 or whether to treat the Ethernet frames as so called “BUM” traffic (Broadcast, Unidentified Unicast or Multicast traffic) that is to be flooded within the EVPN based on the MAC addresses learning information received from the other PE routers);
and determining, by the multi-link access point, a multicast group membership status of each of the devices based on a result from snooping (Col. 6 lines 49-67; PE router uses IGMP join and leave messages received from CE devices to establish multicast group state where upon receiving a notification to subscribe in the membership of a particular multicast group, PE associated (S, G) label to update the group. Also, when on device movies away, the multicast group membership is determined and updated accordingly, see Summary & Col. 3, lines 34-67, Col. 14, lines 6-67 & Col. 15-16.
Additionally, see the Table that shows different status of devices. For example, Col. 13, lines 30-67 & Col. 14; IGMP host mapping database (not shown) in EVPN multicast module 216 may include HMT table 218 stored in EVPN multicast module 216. An HMT table may be maintained by each of PE routers 10B-10G. In some examples, HMT table 218 includes information such as a device under test (DUT) for each host device communicatively coupled to PE router 10, a MAC address for each such host device, the originating PE router IP address associated with each such host device, a sequence number associated with each such host device, and/or a multicast group list of multicast groups of interest to each such host device. Table 1 is an example of an HMT table),
N does not expressly teach “wherein the multicast group membership status indicates whether each device is configured to receive multicast traffic associated with a multicast group.”
Lin teaches “wherein the multicast group membership status indicates whether each device is configured to receive multicast traffic associated with a multicast group” (¶0085 & Fig.2; based on multicast snooping message, the system receives a status declaration information about the target multicast group)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Lin in to the system of N in order to improve efficiency of data transmission (¶0005). Utilizing such teachings enable the system to ensure the success rate of the registration (¶0047). Moreover, the efficiency of data transmission is improved while normal transmission of SIP signaling of the DECT device is ensured, and the data processing load of the DECT host is reduced (¶0047).
Regarding claim 2, N in view of Lin further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein snooping the data from the plurality of devices includes identifying multicast group join requests and multicast group leave requests from the data (Col. 6 lines 49-67; Network traffic from the EVPN core may be associated with a (Source, Group), i.e., (S, G), label to designate a source of the traffic and a multicast group to which the traffic belongs. PE routers of an access network (e.g., an Ethernet segment (ES)) may use Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) Join and Leave messages received from a customer equipment (CE) network device (i.e., a host device) to establish multicast group state for routing purposes).
Regarding claim 3, N in view of Lin further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the multicast group join requests and multicast group leave requests are generated based on an internet group management protocol (IGMP) (Col. 6 lines 49-67, Col. 10, line 38-67; IGMP snooping state).
Regarding claim 4, N in view of Lin further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the multicast group join requests and multicast group leave requests are generated based on a multicast listener discovery protocol (Col. 3, lines 34-67, Col. 6, lines 57 and Col. 7, lines 1-7; listener or MLDv2 protocols are being used).
Regarding claim 5, N in view of Lin further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, by the multi-link access point, the multicast traffic based on the multicast group membership status (Col. 7, lines 26-34; PE routers within an EVPN may communicate such IGMP instructions by exchanging routing and forwarding information according to route Types set forth by BGP. Note that memsahib status is updated e.g., PE router uses IGMP join and leave messages received from CE devices to establish multicast group state where upon receiving a notification to subscribe in the membership of a particular multicast group, PE associated (S, G) label to update the group. Also, when on device movies away, the multicast group membership is determined and updated accordingly, see Summary & Col. 3, lines 34-67, Col. 14, lines 6-67 & Col. 15-16, Col. 6 lines 49-67).
Regarding claim 6, N in view of Lin further teaches the method of claim 5, wherein transmitting the multicast traffic based on the multicast group membership status includes: determining a target multicast group of the multicast traffic and transmitting the multicast traffic to devices of the plurality of devices that are associated with the target multicast group (Col. 13, lines 30-67 & Col. 14; PE routers determine interested host device [target] in a multicast group which other hosts are also interested).
Regarding claim 9, N in view of Lin further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a multicast group membership table based on the multicast group membership status (Col. 13, lines 30-67 & Col. 14; IGMP host mapping database (not shown) in EVPN multicast module 216 may include HMT table 218 stored in EVPN multicast module 216. An HMT table may be maintained by each of PE routers 10B-10G. In some examples, HMT table 218 includes information such as a device under test (DUT) for each host device communicatively coupled to PE router 10, a MAC address for each such host device, the originating PE router IP address associated with each such host device, a sequence number associated with each such host device, and/or a multicast group list of multicast groups of interest to each such host device. Table 1 is an example of an HMT table).
Regarding claim 10, N in view of Lin further teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the access point includes at least one virtual access point (Col. 4; VLAN and EVPN, PE routers, such as Top-of-Rack (TOR) switches, of the access network or ES may use IGMP protocol to receive multicast group membership information from host devices or Virtual Machines (VMs). Upon receiving, from the host devices or VMs, a notification to subscribe in the membership of a particular multicast group, one or more PE routers forwards this request to a BGP EVPN using Ethernet Multicast Source Group Route NLRI (Network Layer Reachability Information). For example, the Ethernet Multicast Source Group Route NLRI may be EVPN Multicast Join Sync Route NLRI (Type-7) or EVPN SMET NLRI (Type-6). The NLRI also tracks the IGMP protocol version of a recipient as well as any source filtering for a given multicast group membership. In one example, all Ethernet Multicast Source Group Routes are announced using ES-Import Route Target extended communities. Thus, the PE routers of the Ethernet segment may route multicast network traffic to the customer equipment device based on the (S, G) label of the multicast traffic).
Regarding Claim 11, N teaches a multi-link access point for communication of multicast traffic (Col. 6, lines 57-67 & Fig. 1A-B; access network or multicast source or PE routers), the multi-link access point comprising:
data processing hardware (inherent from Col. 6, lines 57-67 & Fig. 1A-B; access network or multicast source or PE routers);
and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware (inherent from Col. 6, lines 57-67 & Fig. 1A-B; access network or multicast source or PE routers) to perform operations comprising:
snoop data received from a plurality of devices, the plurality of devices in wireless communication with the multi-link access point (Fig. 3, Col. 6 lines 49-67, Col. 10, line 38-67, Col. 16, lines 8-19; PE routers [access point] use IGMP snooping and SMET to determine the state of a multicast traffic and groups from a plurality of devices in a wireless networks), wherein the multi-link access point comprises a plurality of radios operating on a plurality of radio links (admitted prior art IEEE 802.11, see ¶0004), and wherein snooping the data comprises observing and processing frames received from the plurality of devices (Fig. 3 & Col. 9, lines 20-30; each of PE routers 10A-10G determine whether Ethernet frames can be sent directly to a particular one of the other PE routers 10 or whether to treat the Ethernet frames as so called “BUM” traffic (Broadcast, Unidentified Unicast or Multicast traffic) that is to be flooded within the EVPN based on the MAC addresses learning information received from the other PE routers);
and determine a multicast group membership status of each of the devices (Col. 6 lines 49-67; PE router uses IGMP join and leave messages received from CE devices to establish multicast group state where upon receiving a notification to subscribe in the membership of a particular multicast group, PE associated (S, G) label to update the group. Also, when on device movies away, the multicast group membership is determined and updated accordingly, see Summary & Col. 3, lines 34-67, Col. 14, lines 6-67 & Col. 15-16.
Additionally, see the Table that shows different status of devices. For example, Col. 13, lines 30-67 & Col. 14; IGMP host mapping database (not shown) in EVPN multicast module 216 may include HMT table 218 stored in EVPN multicast module 216. An HMT table may be maintained by each of PE routers 10B-10G. In some examples, HMT table 218 includes information such as a device under test (DUT) for each host device communicatively coupled to PE router 10, a MAC address for each such host device, the originating PE router IP address associated with each such host device, a sequence number associated with each such host device, and/or a multicast group list of multicast groups of interest to each such host device. Table 1 is an example of an HMT table).
N does not expressly teach “based on a result from snooping, wherein the multicast group membership status indicates whether each device is configured to receive multicast traffic associated with a multicast group.”
Lin teaches based on a result from snooping, wherein the multicast group membership status indicates whether each device is configured to receive multicast traffic associated with a multicast group (¶0085 & Fig.2; based on multicast snooping message, the system receives a status declaration information about the target multicast group).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Lin in to the system of N in order to improve efficiency of data transmission (¶0005). Utilizing such teachings enable the system to ensure the success rate of the registration (¶0047). Moreover, the efficiency of data transmission is improved while normal transmission of SIP signaling of the DECT device is ensured, and the data processing load of the DECT host is reduced (¶0047).
Claims 12-15, and 17 are substantially similar to the above claims, thus the same rationale applies.
Claims 7-8, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over N in view of Lin in view of Park et al. (hereinafter Park) US 2021/0028845 A1.
Regarding claim 7, N teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: but N does not expressly teach determining a lowest modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for each multicast group; determining a target multicast group of the multicast traffic; and transmitting the multicast traffic to devices of the plurality of devices that are associated with the target multicast group using the lowest modulation and coding scheme (MCS) associated with the target multicast group.
Park teaches determining a lowest modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for each multicast group (Fig. 5b & ¶0053; determining feedback information that focuses on MCS); determining a target multicast group of the multicast traffic (Fig. 5b & ¶0053; terminal 24 may transmit the MCS index, corresponding to a maximally supportable modulation order and target code rate, as the feedback information to the base station 22 on a feedback channel based on an estimated channel, and the base station 12 may detect a minimum MCS index from among MCS indexes received from a plurality of terminals including the terminal 24 to detect a lowest channel condition); and transmitting the multicast traffic to devices of the plurality of devices that are associated with the target multicast group using the lowest modulation and coding scheme (MCS) associated with the target multicast group (¶0038-¶0042 & Fig. 5b; S20, the base station 22 may transmit allocation information about a feedback channel to the terminal 24. For example, multicast transmission may be provided on a multicast channel MCH, and the multicast channel MCH may include a multicast traffic channel MTCH and a multicast control channel MCCH. In some example embodiments, the base station 22 may provide the allocation information about the feedback channel on the multicast control channel MCCH. The allocation information about the feedback channel may represent locations and configurations (for example, the number) of resources allocated to a feedback channel for a multicast group including the terminal 24, and in addition to the terminal 24, other terminals included in the multicast group including the terminal 24 may receive the allocation information about the feedback channel from the base station 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Park into the system of N in view of Lin in order to use MCS information as feedback for the terminal device to select a multicast group and channel (¶0038). Utilizing such teachings enable the plurality of terminals of the multicast group to validly receive multicast transmission, the base station may determine transmission parameters for the multicast transmission. For example, the transmission parameters may be determined based on conditions of a plurality of channels between the base station and the plurality of terminals, and the conditions of the plurality of channels may be obtained from channel feedbacks provided from the plurality of terminals. Also, even when a new terminal subscribes to a multicast group or an existing terminal cancels a subscription to the multicast group, the base station may determine transmission parameters again. Therefore, overhead for determining a transmission parameter may affect the efficiency of multicast transmission (¶0003).
Regarding claim 8, N in view of Lin teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: but N does not expressly teach further comprising: determining a lowest modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for each multicast group; determining a target multicast group of the multicast traffic; and transmitting the multicast traffic to the plurality of devices using the lowest modulation and coding scheme (MCS) associated with the target multicast group.
Park teaches further comprising: determining a lowest modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for each multicast group (Fig. 5b & ¶0053; determining feedback information that focuses on MCS); determining a target multicast group of the multicast traffic (Fig. 5b & ¶0053; terminal 24 may transmit the MCS index, corresponding to a maximally supportable modulation order and target code rate, as the feedback information to the base station 22 on a feedback channel based on an estimated channel, and the base station 12 may detect a minimum MCS index from among MCS indexes received from a plurality of terminals including the terminal 24 to detect a lowest channel condition); and transmitting the multicast traffic to the plurality of devices using the lowest modulation and coding scheme (MCS) associated with the target multicast group (¶0038-¶0042 & Fig. 5b; S20, the base station 22 may transmit allocation information about a feedback channel to the terminal 24. For example, multicast transmission may be provided on a multicast channel MCH, and the multicast channel MCH may include a multicast traffic channel MTCH and a multicast control channel MCCH. In some example embodiments, the base station 22 may provide the allocation information about the feedback channel on the multicast control channel MCCH. The allocation information about the feedback channel may represent locations and configurations (for example, the number) of resources allocated to a feedback channel for a multicast group including the terminal 24, and in addition to the terminal 24, other terminals included in the multicast group including the terminal 24 may receive the allocation information about the feedback channel from the base station 22).
Regarding claim 16, N in view of Lin further teaches the access point of claim 15, but does not expressly teach wherein a legacy device is included in the multicast group, wherein the multicast traffic is transmitted to the legacy device using one radio link.
However, this limitation is obvious and a design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art because legacy device is subjective (would an iPhone 11 be a legacy device compared with the new iPhone 16?) and radio link is inherent when a device communicates with base stations. Further, Park teaches base station 12 communicates with different devices that includes antennas e.g., radio links, see ¶0094.
Claims 18-19 are substantially similar to the above claims, thus the same rationale applies.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over N in view of Lin in view of Kubler et al. (hereinafter Kubler) US 2009/0034454 A1.
Regarding claim 20, N further teaches the multi-link access point of claim 11, but N does not expressly teach
the plurality of devices including a particular device having a plurality of radios, the operations further comprising:
evaluate a data transmission rate for each radio of the plurality of radios of the particular device;
and responsive to a determination that a particular radio in the plurality of radios has an efficiency metric that is below a threshold efficiency value,
direct the particular device to use another radio having a higher data transmission rate that the particular radio; and
reducing the power of the particular radio.
Kubler teaches the plurality of devices including a particular device having a plurality of radios (¶0376-¶0379; Potential peripheral LAN master devices not only require the ability to communicate with peripheral LAN slave devices, but also require higher power radios to also communicate with the premises LAN. Thus, potential peripheral LAN master devices and other non-peripheral LAN slave devices might contain two radio units 3112 or two transceivers 3110--one serving the premises LAN and the other serving the peripheral LAN--else only contain a single radio unit to service both networks), the operations further comprising:
evaluate a data transmission rate for each radio of the plurality of radios of the particular device (¶0402; data transmission rates are evaluated);
determine that a particular radio in the plurality of radios has an efficiency metric that is below a threshold efficiency value, based on a particular data transmission rate for the particular radio (¶0402; if constraints are placed on the maximum or minimum data rates, the transmission power may also need to be modified. For example, to further minimize the complexity associated with a fully random range of data rate values, a standard range and set of several data rates may be used. Under such a scenario, a transmission power adjustment might also need to supplement the data rate adjustment. Similarly, any adjustment of power must take into consideration maximum and minimum operable levels. Data rate adjustment may supplement such limitations. Any attempted modification of the power and data rate might take into consideration any available battery parameters such as those that might indicate a normal or current battery capacity, the drain on the battery under normal conditions and during transmission, or the fact that the battery is currently being charged. The latter parameter proves to be very significant in that when the battery is being charged, the peripheral LAN slave device has access to a much greater power source for transmission, which may justify the highest power transmission and possibly the slowest data rate under certain circumstances);
direct the particular device to use another radio having a higher data transmission rate that the particular radio (obvious from ¶0377 & ¶0402);
and reduce a power of the particular radio that has an efficiency metric that is below the threshold efficiency value (¶0402; if constraints are placed on the maximum or minimum data rates, the transmission power may also need to be modified. For example, to further minimize the complexity associated with a fully random range of data rate values, a standard range and set of several data rates may be used. Under such a scenario, a transmission power adjustment might also need to supplement the data rate adjustment. Similarly, any adjustment of power must take into consideration maximum and minimum operable levels. Data rate adjustment may supplement such limitations. Any attempted modification of the power and data rate might take into consideration any available battery parameters such as those that might indicate a normal or current battery capacity, the drain on the battery under normal conditions and during transmission, or the fact that the battery is currently being charged. The latter parameter proves to be very significant in that when the battery is being charged, the peripheral LAN slave device has access to a much greater power source for transmission, which may justify the highest power transmission and possibly the slowest data rate under certain circumstances).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Kubler in to the system of N in view of Lin in order to adjust power parameters according to transmission and data rates (¶0402).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHRAN ABU ROUMI whose telephone number is (469)295-9170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-5PM.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
MAHRAN ABU ROUMI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2455
/MAHRAN Y ABU ROUMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights