DETAILED ACTION
Applicants’ response filed 1/29/2026 has been considered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-35 are pending.
Prior rejections under 35 USC 112 are maintained and reformulated in view of amendments.
Prior rejections under 35 USC 103 are maintained in view of amendments and remarks.
Application is pending.
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 1-35 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.
For example, claim 1 recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
418
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claims states, “…communicate, via a control channel, first signaling, wherein the first signaling comprises an indication of a set of encoding symbol identifiers…”
Is the indication independent from the encoding symbol identifiers?
Based on the claim language, it is not clear if the actual encoding symbol identifiers are transmitted.
Essential elements are missing from the claim.
Similarly the claim states, “…receive, via a data channel, second signaling, wherein the second signaling…excludes the indication of the set of encoding symbol identifiers based at least on part on communication of the first signaling comprising the indication of the set of encoding symbol identifiers…”
Again, it is not clear what the distinction is between the indication and the actual encoding symbol identifiers?
The claim lack clarity on exactly what is being transmitted and how it is used for the decoding.
Essential elements are missing from the claim.
Independent claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons. Respective dependent claims 2-19 and 21-35 further limit parent claims and are rejected at least based on dependency.
Corrections.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For example, claim 1 recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
418
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicants appear to misconstrue or misunderstand the rejections. Nevertheless, the Examiner will attempt to further clarify the rejections in view of remarks presented below.
Applicants contend, “…Yi is silent regarding separate transmission of packets and ESI…” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. For example, Yi teaches (i.e., Figure 1 below) ESI and T are on separate distinct paths.
PNG
media_image2.png
373
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Examiner would like to emphasize that there is no way ESIj information transmitted on channel 208 is the same as the information transmitted on Tj. Just looking at the figure alone, it is clear that the ESIj is outputted from the selection descriptor whereas Tj is based on the source packets and the output of XOR of selected source packets. Therefore there is no way ESIj is included in Tj transmission.
Applicants further contend that Yi is silent regarding multiple channels for communicating ESI and data packets. Again, the Examiner respective disagrees. As shown in Figure 1 above Yi clear teaches two separate paths/channels. Applicants referring to channel 212 Figure 3 of Yi showing the channel as being one is a misrepresentation of Yi. A clear picture can be seen in Figure 2 below, for example, wherein Yi shows that channels 212 actually have two separate channels. This is further supported by paragraph 0032.
PNG
media_image3.png
476
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore Yi substantially teaches to transmit ESIj over a control channel that is separate and independent of the data channel Tj as shown in Figure 1 above along with related text. Yi further teaches that there is no way the ESIj is transmitted on the same channel as Tj based on Figure 1 and related text.
It is the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims of the present application, as presented, are not entirely clear and are not patentably distinct over the prior arts. Applicants are encouraged to formulate claim language that clearly defines the novelty of the application. If Applicants believe an interview with the Examiner might be useful, then Applicants are welcome to contact the Examiner with proposed amendments for a discussion.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MUJTABA M CHAUDRY whose telephone number is (571)272-3817. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Albert DeCady can be reached at 571-272-3819. 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.
MUJTABA M. CHAUDRY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2112
/MUJTABA M CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112