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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 21, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-12, and 14-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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(s) 1, 5, 9-10, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ram et al. (hereinafter “Ram”, US 2014/0233734) in view of Li et al. (hereinafter “Li”, US 2017/0070418).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19, Ram discloses a method, and access point, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon, comprising:
obtaining, by an access point (AP) (i.e., AP 120A as shown in Fig. 1A), a multicast frame in a wireless local area network (WLAN) (i.e., multicast frames sent from the AP 120 as described in paragraph 0022), the WLAN including a plurality of sub-networks with a same service set identifier (SSID) (i.e., VLAN 1 105A and VLAN 2 105B as shown in Fig. 1A, and these VLANs share the same BSSID as described in paragraphs 0028, and 0032);
determining, by the AP and based on the multicast frame, a target sub-network of the plurality of sub-networks for receiving the multicast frame (i.e., when frames addressed to any VLAN are received, the AP 120 uses a corresponding group key for encryption before broadcasting to connected stations as described in paragraph 0022);
obtaining, by the AP, a unique group temporal key (GTK) for the target sub-network, the plurality of sub-networks being assigned with a plurality of different GTKs (i.e., each VLAN is associated with a unique group key as described in Abstract);
encrypting, by the AP, the multicast frame using the obtained unique GTK for the target sub-network (i.e., the AP 120 uses a corresponding group key for encryption before broadcasting to connected stations as described in paragraph 0022); and
transmitting, by the AP, the encrypted multicast frame to one or more client devices in the target sub-network (i.e., the AP 120 uses a corresponding group key for encryption before broadcasting to connected stations as described in paragraph 0022).
Ram, however, does not expressly disclose:
determining, by the AP, a source address in a frame header of the multicast frame; and
determining, by the AP and based on the multicast frame, a target sub-network of the plurality of sub-networks for receiving the multicast frame based on obtaining, from the source address in the frame header of the multicast frame, an identifier of the target sub-network.
In a similar endeavor, Li discloses multicast in multi-user transmissions. Li also discloses:
determining, by the AP, a source address in a frame header of the multicast frame (i.e., the AP determines a multicast Association ID (AID) (e.g., the multicast group address) for a multicast group for which the STA is a member as described in paragraphs 0043-0045 and 0057); and
determining, by the AP and based on the multicast frame, a target sub-network of the plurality of sub-networks for receiving the multicast frame based on obtaining, from the source address in the frame header of the multicast frame, an identifier of the target sub-network (i.e., the AID switch request element 300 indicates to an AP including a group address 314 for the multicast group of the requesting STA, and the AP determines the multicast AID of the multicast group for which the STA is a member using the multicast group address in group address 314 as described in paragraphs 0043-0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to enable an efficient way to transmit a large amount of data to a group of stations in a WLAN.
With further regard to claim 10, Ram also discloses an access point (i.e., computing device 600 as described in paragraphs 0059-0060, and as shown in Fig. 6) comprising at least one processor (i.e., memory 610) and a memory coupled to the at least one processor (i.e., the memory 610 is coupled to a processor 620).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Ram and Li disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Ram also discloses wherein obtaining the GTK for the target sub-network comprises:
obtaining a mapping relationship between the plurality of different GTKs and the plurality of sub-networks (i.e., a first VLAN is configured by sending a first group key to each station that is a member of the first VLAN as described in Abstract); and
determining the unique GTK for the target sub-network based on the mapping relationship (i.e., a first group key is sent to members of the first VLAN, and a second group key is sent to members of the second VLAN as described in paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 9, Ram and Li disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Ram also discloses assigning the unique GTK to the one or more client devices during authentication processes for the one or more client devices (i.e., the VLAN causes transmission of the group key during authentication as described in paragraph 0036).
Claim(s) 2-3, 6, 11-12, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ram in view of Li and further in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter “Zhang”, US 2015/0103727).
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 20, Ram and Li disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but do not expressly disclose features of these claims.
In a similar endeavor, Zhang discloses method and system for determining the existence of broadcast and multicast frames buffered in an access point. Zhang also discloses wherein obtaining the multicast frame in the WLAN comprises:
generating a predetermined type of frame (i.e., beacon frame as described in paragraphs 0006-0007, 0016, and 0032-0035), a frame header of the predetermined type of frame including a receiver address field (i.e., association ID and/ MAC address of the STA as described in paragraph 0006), a group identifier flag field for a sub-network (i.e., the index value associates the broadcast/multicast indication bit as described in paragraph 0032) and a group identifier field for the sub-network (i.e., the AP allocates an index value for each SSID and/or multicast group as described in paragraph 0032);
determining the receiver address field based on a multicast address (i.e., association ID and/ MAC address of the STA as described in paragraph 0006);
determining the group identifier flag field based on a predetermined value to indicate that an identifier of the target sub-network is used in the predetermined type of frame (i.e., the AP sets a broadcast/multicast indication bit that associates the service network and/or multicast group to the valid state as described in paragraphs 0019-0022, and in Abstract); and
determining the group identifier field based on the identifier of the target sub-network (i.e., the index value is associated with the SSID and/or multicast group as described in paragraph 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to avoid unnecessary wakening the stations in order to deliver the buffered data.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Ram, Li and Zhang disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Zhang also discloses:
transmitting the identifier for the target sub-network to the one or more client devices in the target sub-network (i.e., each SSID and/or multicast group is allocated with an index value and the STA obtains that index value and uses it with the indication with in the Beacon frame as described in paragraphs 0032-0035).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Ram and Li disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but do not expressly disclose features of these claims.
In a similar endeavor, Zhang discloses method and system for determining the existence of broadcast and multicast frames buffered in an access point. Zhang also discloses wherein transmitting the encrypted multicast frame to the one or more client devices in the target sub-network comprises:
checking power save (PS) status of all client devices in the target sub-network (i.e., determining the STA is in PS status as described in paragraph 0006);
determining that all client devices in the target sub-network are not in PS status (i.e., the STA wakes up and sends a short Power Supply Poll frame to the AP indicating that the STA is not in the PS status as described in paragraphs 0006, and 0016); and
transmitting the encrypted multicast frame to one or more client devices in the target sub-network (i.e., transmitting to STAs as described in paragraph 0006).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to avoid unnecessary wakening the stations in order to deliver the buffered data.
Claim(s) 7, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ram in view of Li and further in view of Jakkahalli et al. (hereinafter “Jakkahalli”, US 2007/0081477).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Ram and Li disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but do not expressly disclose features of these claims.
In a similar endeavor, Jakkahalli discloses virtual LAN override in a multiple BSSID mode of operation. Jakkahalli also discloses
receiving a connecting request from a target client device, the connecting request including a credential (i.e., user credentials and parameters of a connection request are sent as a series of RADIUS request messages as described in paragraph 0041); and
determining the target sub-network including the target client device based on the credential (i.e., accept based on the credentials during the authentication process as described in paragraphs 0041-0043, and assigning a VLAN to a wireless client after successful EAP authentication as described in paragraph 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to prevent unauthorized access to the network.
Regarding claim 18, Ram, Li, and Jakkahalli disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Ram also discloses assigning the unique GTK to the one or more client devices during authentication processes for the one or more client devices (i.e., the VLAN causes transmission of the group key during authentication as described in paragraph 0036).
Claim(s) 8, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ram in view of Li in view of Jakkahalli, and further in view of Smith (US 2025/0008328).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Ram, Li and Jakkahalli disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but do not expressly disclose features of these claims.
In a similar endeavor, Smith discloses methods and systems for micro edge applications and grouping. Smith also discloses wherein credentials from all the client devices in the target network are the same (i.e., a pre-shared key (PSK) is the credential shared by all devices as described in paragraph 0630).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to prevent unauthorized access to the network.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ram in view of Li in view of Zhang, and further in view of Griswold (US 7,489,648).
Regarding claims 21-22, Ram, Li and Zhang disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but do not expressly disclose features of these claims.
In a similar endeavor, Griswold discloses optimizing 802.11 power-save for VLAN. Griswold also discloses wherein transmitting the encrypted multicast frame to the one or more client devices in the target sub-network comprises: not checking PS status of client devices in other sub-networks of the plurality of sub-networks (i.e., the PSP operation of Station C 304 on VLAN 2 310 has no effect on the transmission of multicasts/broadcasts to Station D 306 operating on VLAN 3 312 as described in col. 6, line 62 – col. 7, line 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to improve scalability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 AM-5:00 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, KATHY WANG-HURST can be reached at (571)270-5371. 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.
/Wayne H Cai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights