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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/26 have been fully considered but they are moot due to new ground rejection below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 24 recites claim limitations: “An apparatus for a wireless communication device, the apparatus comprising: means for causing the wireless communication device ...; means for processing a plurality of received packets …; and means for determining the k data packets”.
A review of this instant specification shows that FIG. 1 supports the cited “means for” claim limitations with wireless communication devices.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-15 and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20240267791 A1) in view of FITZEK (US 20160021599 A1).
For claim 1, Liu discloses an apparatus comprising logic and circuitry configured to cause a wireless communication device to:
encode k data packets into n encoded packets according to a Network Coding (NC) scheme, wherein k is equal to or greater than two, and wherein n is greater than k, wherein the NC scheme is configured such that the k data packets are decodable from a group of at least k encoded packets (FIGs. 1, 5-9 and the associated text, such as FIG. 6, “[0076] [0076] In some aspects, the operations associated with reference number 605 and 610 may be performed at the PDCP layer of the transmitter. The PDCP layer may provide the data blocks to the RLC layer of the transmitter. As shown by reference number 615, the transmitter may encode the K data blocks into N encoded packets … the transmitter may encode the K data blocks into the N encoded packets such that the N encoded packets include additional information or bits for purposes of forward error correction. This permits encoded packets to be recovered by a receiver, for example, if the number of received encoded packets is larger than the number of K data blocks regardless of which encoded packets are received.” and “[0111] For example, as shown by reference number 730, the base station 110 may perform network coding to generate L encoded packets from the K source packets (e.g., where L is greater than K). For example, the base station 110 may generate the L encoded packets from the K source packets in a similar manner as described in connection with FIGS. 5 and 6. …” note that NC scheme is L reads on n); and
transmit the n encoded packets over a plurality of wireless communication resources by transmitting at least one first encoded packet over a first wireless communication resource and transmitting at least one second encoded packet over a second wireless communication resource (FIGs. 1 and 6 in view of “[0038] … a UE 120 may perform scheduling operations, resource selection operations …”);
Liu is silent but FITZEK, in the same field of data communication, discloses using CSMA/CA in MAC layer (“[0068] … the MAC layer shares the channel equally between the nodes, which is a valid assumption for CSMA/CA. Based on this assumption, the helper and the source transmit k coded packets …”). OOSA would have been motivated to apply CSMA/CA by FITZEK to the MAC to yield a predictable result of avoiding collision.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine Liu and FITZEK for the benefit of avoiding collision ([0068] of FITZEK).
Liu in view of FITZEK does not specifically state wherein the apparatus is configured to cause the wireless communication device to avoid fully performing a Carrier Sense Multiple Access/Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA) procedure prior to transmitting the n encoded packets over the plurality of wireless communication resources, which is a negative limitation. Liu does not mention CSMA/CA procedure, suggesting CSMA/CA procedure is not required in the operations of Network Coding (NC) scheme cited above. CSMA/CA procedure to NC scheme is only an optional choice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application that the claim limitation is implicitly taught by Liu in view of FITZEK.
Independent claims 19, 21 and 24 are rejected because each of them has the same subject matter as claim 1.
As to claims 3 and 20, Liu in view of FITZEK discloses claims 1 and 19, FITZEK further discloses: configured to mandate the wireless communication device to fully perform the CSMA/CA procedure prior to transmitting one or more other data packets, which are not encoded according to the NC scheme, over one or more of the wireless communication (“[0068] … the MAC layer shares the channel equally between the nodes, which is a valid assumption for CSMA/CA. Based on this assumption, the helper and the source transmit k coded packets …”). The motivation of combining Liu and FITZEK is the same as stated in the parent claim.
As to claim 5, Liu in view of FITZEK discloses claim 1, and further discloses: configured to cause the wireless communication device to fully performing the CSMA/CA procedure by avoiding performance of a full Clear Channel Assessment (CCA) and backoff procedure prior to transmitting the n encoded packets over the plurality of wireless communication resources (This is a negative claim limitation and is only optional to NC scheme because it is not mentioned by Liu in view of FITZEK).
As to claim 6 Liu in view of FITZEK discloses claim 1, and further discloses: configured to cause the wireless communication device to avoid fully performing the CSMA/CA procedure by avoiding performance of a virtual carrier sensing procedure prior to transmitting the n encoded packets over the plurality of wireless communication resources (This is a negative claim limitation and is only optional to NC scheme because it is not mentioned by Liu in view of FITZEK).
As to claim 7, Liu in view of FITZEK discloses claim 1, Liu further discloses: wherein the plurality of wireless communication resources comprises a plurality of wireless communication frequency resources (suggested by “[0038] … a UE 120 may perform scheduling operations, resource selection operations, … [0039] … In 5G NR, two initial operating bands have been identified as frequency range designations FR1 (410 MHz-7.125 GHz) and FR2 (24.25 GHz-52.6 GHz). …” note “resource selection” suggests a plurality of resources).
As to claims 8 and 22, Liu in view of FITZEK discloses claims 1 and 21, Liu further discloses: wherein the plurality of wireless communication resources comprises a plurality of wireless communication channels (FIG. 4, “Downlink Transport channels” and FIG. 1 in view of “[0003] … A UE may communicate with a base station via downlink communications and uplink communications. “Downlink” (or “DL”) refers to a communication link from the base station to the UE, and “uplink” (or “UL”) refers to a communication link from the UE to the base station.”).
As to claim 9, Liu in view of FITZEK discloses claim 8, and further discloses: wherein a wireless communication channel of the plurality of wireless communication channels comprises a channel width of at least 20 Megahertz (MHz) (using a channel width of at least 20 MHz is well known in the art, Examiner takes an official notice on it. For example, Park (US 20230082330 A1) disclose it in “[0059] The bandwidth of a channel may be 20 MHz, 40 MHz, or 80 MHz, 160 MHz, 320 MHz contiguous bandwidths or an 80+80 MHz (160 MHz) non-contiguous bandwidth.” note that Applicant does not challenge the Official notice, therefore, it is now considered as an acknowledged prior art).
As to claim 10, Liu in view of FITZEK discloses claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the plurality of wireless communication resources comprises a plurality of Orthogonal-Frequency-Division-Multiple-Access (OFDMA) Resource Units (RUs) (using a channel width of at least 20 MHz is well known in the art, Examiner takes an official notice on it. For example, Park (US 20230082330 A1) disclose it in “[0017] Embodiments disclosed herein relate to the use network coding for a multi-user OFDMA packet (e.g., an MU PPDU) to enhance reliability of each user's data packet reception. These embodiments are described in more detail below.”; note that Applicant does not challenge the Official notice, therefore, it is now considered as an acknowledged prior art).
As to claims 11, 23 and 25, Liu in view of FITZEK discloses claims 1, 21 and 24, Liu further discloses: wherein the plurality of wireless communication resources comprises a plurality of wireless communication links between the wireless communication device and a receiver/transmitter device (FIG. 4, “Downlink Transport channels” and FIG. 1 in view of “[0003] … A UE may communicate with a base station via downlink communications and uplink communications. “Downlink” (or “DL”) refers to a communication link from the base station to the UE, and “uplink” (or “UL”) refers to a communication link from the UE to the base station.”).
As to claim 12, Liu in view of FITZEK discloses claim 1, and further discloses: wherein an encoded packet of the n encoded packets comprises a sequence number to indicate a location of the encoded packet in the n encoded packets (using a sequence number in a sequence of packets is well known in the art, and Examiner takes an official notice on this statement. For example, Park (US 20230082330 A1) disclose it in “[0090] … each packet may include a sequence number that indicates the location of the encoded packet in the n encoded packets.”; note that Applicant does not challenge the Official notice, therefore, it is now considered as an acknowledged prior art).
As to claim 13, Liu in view of FITZEK discloses claim 1, Liu further discloses: wherein the NC scheme is configured such that the k data packets are decodable from any group of k encoded packets from the n encoded packets (“[0047] … A receive processor 258 may process (e.g., demodulate and decode) the detected symbols, may provide decoded data for the UE 120 to a data sink 260, and may provide decoded control information and system information to a controller/processor 280. …” in view of the parent claim which teaches corresponding opposite operations of encoding).
As to claim 14, Liu in view of FITZEK discloses claim 1, Liu further discloses: wherein the k data packets comprise time-sensitive data packets (“[0077]… the set of network coding parameters specifies the value of N for a particular set of sub-parameters, a delay budget for the RLC SDU, available encoding and decoding computation resources of the transmitter, the value of K (e.g., the number of data blocks), a target error probability for one or more RLC PDU packets for the N encoded packets, channel conditions for transmission of the RLC PDU packets(s), and/or the type of network code that is to be used to encode the K data blocks into the N encoded packets …”).
As to claims 15 and 23, Liu in view of FITZEK discloses claims 1 and 22, and further discloses: configured to cause the wireless communication device to communicate setup information with a receiver device prior to transmitting the n encoded packets to the receiver device, wherein the setup information comprises information to identify the plurality of wireless communication resources (as disclosed by the parent claim because a channel to the receiver device must be setup before the receiver device receives n encoded packets).
As to claim 17, Liu in view of FITZEK discloses claim 1, and further discloses: a radio to transmit the n encoded packets (as disclosed by the parent claim, such as ratio of k/n).
As to claim 18, Liu in view of FITZEK discloses claim 17, and further discloses: one or more antennas connected to the radio, and a processor to execute instructions of an operating system of the wireless communication device (FIGs. 1-3 shows wireless devices each with at least an antenna connected to a radio and a processor for the wireless device operations).
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20240267791 A1) in view of FITZEK (US 20160021599 A1), further in view of Yeh (US 20220124560 A1).
As to claim 4, Liu in view of FITZEK discloses claim 3, and is silent but Yeh, in the same field of endeavor of data communication, discloses: wherein the k data packets have a first latency requirement and the other data packets have a second latency requirement, the first latency requirement is lower than the second latency requirement (“[0039] Network condition metrics include … latency (e.g., average packet delay for all packets, per slice or per QoS class)”). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Yeh above to the data packets disclosed by Liu in view of FITZEK to yield a predictable result of meeting network condition metrics requirement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the to combine Yeh with Liu in view of FITZEK for the benefit of meeting network condition metrics requirement ([0039] of Yeh).
As to claim 16, Liu in view of FITZEK discloses claim 1, and is silent but Yeh, in the same field of endeavor of data communication, discloses: wherein the wireless communication device comprises an Ultra-Low-Latency (ULL) STA (“[0015] … ultra-reliable low latency communications (URLLC)…”). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Yeh above to the data packets disclosed by Liu in view of FITZEK to yield a predictable result of meeting network condition metrics requirement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the to combine Yeh with Liu in view of FITZEK for the benefit of meeting network condition metrics requirement ([0039] of Yeh).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANYE WU whose telephone number is (571)270-1665. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8am-6pm.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571) 272-3927. 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.
/JIANYE WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462