DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status
2. The response filed on May 04, 2026 has been entered and made of record.
3. Claims 1-10 and 16-36 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
4. The applicant's arguments filed on May 04, 2026 regarding claims 1-10 and 16-36 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. [Note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well].
Regarding claims 1, 16, 23 and 32, applicant argued that Brueck does not disclose the claim feature “receiving, from a transmitting device or a receiving device, a request to update network coding information for the wireless communication” (Applicant, page 9-12, Remarks Made in an Amendment dated May 04, 2026).
Brueck et al. (US 2013/0148563 A1):
The applicant cited paragraphs [0060] and [0067] of Brueck and stated that ACK/NACK feedback is information provided responsive to decoding success/failure and is not shown as a "request."
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument.
As a support of evidence, Brueck discloses:
“A device belonging to network coding group M may receive up to |M| packets in a given subframe, namely one intended packet and |M|−1 un-intended packets, as discussed above. The device provides uplink feedback based on its ability to decode the packets. In LTE, for example, the device signals ACK/NACK for the intended packet” (paragraph[0060]).
“FIG. 11 is a flow diagram illustrating a methodology performed by a UE as previously described. At step 1110, the UE receives network coding group membership information. At step 1120, the UE monitors transmissions from the eNB, for all UEs of its network coding group. At step 1130, the UE determines whether the packets received in the subframe are correctly decoded. At step 1140, if any intended packet transmissions were not correctly decoded, the UE may send NACK feedback information to the eNB” (Fig. 11, paragraph[0067]).
“With reference to FIG. 13C, block 1330 may involve sending a network coded data transmission identified to multiple UEs in the network coding group (block 1370). The method 1300 may further involve: receiving ACK/NACK feedback responsive to the data transmission from UEs in the network coding group (block 1372); and generating a network coded data packet based on the ACK/NACK feedback (block 1374). The method 1300 may further involve scrambling a PDCCH message with the network coding identifier (block 1380). Block 1320 may involve associating the network coding group identifier to the UEs in the network coding group by RRC signaling (block 1390). Block 1320 may further involve: signaling G-RNTI(s) for use by the UEs in the network coding group (block 1392); or signaling a C-RNTI for each UE in the network coding group (block 1394)” (Fig. 13C, paragraph[0072]).
“Additionally with respect to information that may be provided in the DCI format in accordance with the present disclosure, in order to allow the device to decode an XOR combined packet, the modulation and coding scheme (MCS) must be signaled for the XOR group of size K. Thus, K MCS identifiers may be used. By way of non-limiting example, to convey the modulation and coding schemes of the devices in an XOR group of size K, MCS identifiers (mcsID1, . . . , mcsIDK) may be included in the DCI format. Alternative design options exist to define the number of bits to represent the sequence of modulation and coding schemes will be apparent to those skilled artisans in light of the discussion herein” (paragraph[0059]).
“Because a mobile station may need to send ACK/NACKs for intended packets, and multiple ACKs for un-intended packets, in the same Transmission Time Interval (TTI), a PUCCH format that supports a large ACK/NACK payload (such as, for example, PUCCH format 3) may be utilized. Alternatively, for |M|=4, PUCCH format lb may be suitable, by way of non-limiting example” (paragraph[0063]).
Accordingly, step 1370, 1372, 1374 and 1380 of Fig, 13 (paragraph [0072]) illustrates that ACK/NACK feedback is information provided responsive to decoding success/failure and is served as “a request” for a change in network coding parameters to the base station.
For example, the UE sends NACK in uplink control information (UCI) indicating decoding failure to the base station. In other words, the UE is requesting for a change in network coding parameters to the base station. Clearly, Brueck discloses the claim feature “receive, from a transmitting device or a receiving device, a request to update network coding information for the wireless communication”.
The applicant further argued that Welin does not disclose the claim feature “receiving, from a transmitting device or a receiving device, a request to update network coding information for the wireless communication” (Applicant, page 9-12, Remarks Made in an Amendment dated May 04, 2026).
WELIN et al. (US 2018/0331781 A1):
The applicant the same argument that the feedback information is not a request.
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument.
As a support of evidence, Welin discloses:
“According to one aspect, a method is provided which is performed by a network coding module for controlling encoding of data to be sent from a network sending node of a communication network applying Network Coding. The method comprises acquiring a data block to be addressed to a network receiving node, e.g. a client, encoding the data block in accordance with a coding parameter such as overshoot ratio, and sending the encoded data block addressed to a network receiving node. Furthermore, the method comprises receiving feedback information from the network receiving node regarding decoding performance of the sent encoded data block, and based on the feedback information, determining whether the sent data block was successfully decoded by the network receiving node or not. Moreover, the method comprises, when it is determined that the sent data block was not successfully decoded, determining an adjusted coding parameter value of the coding parameter, encoding the data block with the adjusted coding parameter value, and sending the with the adjusted coding parameter value encoded data block addressed to the network receiving node, and, when it is determined that the sent data block was successfully decoded, encoding a subsequent data block, in accordance with the coding parameter value and sending the encoded subsequent data block addressed to the network receiving node.” (paragraph[0015]).
“In another action 406, the network decoding module determines a performance of the decoding. Typically, the network decoding module determines if it has received enough data packets, i.e. as many data packets as the coding vector has positions (i.e. length g of the coding vector). In addition, the network decoding module may further base the determination on correctly received data packets only, e.g. discarding data packets which indicate that they have been incorrectly transported. For instance any suitable checksum or control flag of the received data packets may be evaluated when receiving the data packet” (Fig.4, paragraph[0074]).
“In a following action 410, the network decoding module compiles feedback information regarding the performance of the decoding and, in a final action 412, sends the compiled feedback information addressed to the network sending node. The feedback information may be formulated in various ways, e.g. as an acknowledgement message that indicates that the data block was successfully decoded, or as a more complex instruction message that may instruct the network sending node to increase or decrease overshoot. The feedback may further be sent in accordance with any suitable transport protocol, such as UDP or TCP” (Fig.4, paragraph[0075]).
“In response to the sent encoded data block, i.e. the “g+overshoot” data packets, in a following action 306, the network coding module receives feedback information regarding decoding performance of the encoded data block at the network receiving node” (paragraph[0058]).
“In another action 310, which is performed when it in action 308 was determined that the decoding was not successful (N in FIG. 3), the network coding module determines an updated coding parameter value and adjusts the current coding parameter value to the updated coding parameter value. In this embodiment the coding parameter value relates to overshoot and the adjusted coding parameter value is determined as an increased overshoot value, which is applied when the method proceeds with repeating the action 302 of encoding the current data block, i.e. an increased amount “g+increased overshoot” of encoded symbols are calculated, before being sent together with their respective coding vectors in the action 304, etc” (paragraph[0060]).
According to paragraph [0075], feedback information regarding the performance of the decoding performance serves as a request message/a more complex instruction message that requests/instructs the network sending node to update coding parameter value (increase or decrease overshoot). It is clear that Welin discloses the claim feature “receive, from a transmitting device or a receiving device, a request to update network coding information for the wireless communication”.
The dependent claim 7 is not patentable according to the solid prior art teachings as set forth above with combination under Brueck in view of Weilin (based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of independent claims). Additionally, cited prior Kim discloses updated network coding information in Figs. 6, 10, paragraphs [0074], [0095], [0097], [0098], [0100]. All remaining arguments presented by Applicant directed to the other claims are found unpersuasive for the same reasons as stated herein.
Therefore, in view of above, while Applicant’s remarks and arguments have been considered, they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 1-6, 9-10, 16-17, 21-28 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brueck et al. (US 2013/0148563 A1), hereinafter “Brueck” in view of WELIN et al. (US 2018/0331781 A1), hereinafter “Welin”.
Regarding claim 1, Brueck discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a base station (Figs.5, 11, 13C, a network coding scenario operable by an evolved Node B (eNB) associating with plurality of UEs), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (paragraphs [0078]-[0080], implemented in hardware, software, firmware, or any combination) and configured to cause the base station to:
receive, from a transmitting device or a receiving device (Figs.5, 11, network coding operation in a wireless network), a request to update network coding information for the wireless communication (paragraphs [0060], [0067], uplink feedback based on its ability to decode the packets); and
transmit network coding information (paragraphs [0059], [0072], network coded packet based on ACK/NACK) to at least one of the transmitting device or the receiving device in response to the request (paragraphs [0059], [0072], scrambling a PDCCH message with the network coding identifier).
While Brueck implicitly refers to “a request to update network coding information” and “updated network coding information”, Welin from the same or similar field of endeavor explicitly discloses a request to update network coding information for the wireless communication (paragraphs [0058]-[0060], [0074]-[0075], instruction message to increase or decrease overshoot) and updated network coding information (paragraphs [0058]-[0060], [0074]-[0075], updated coding parameter value and adjusts current coding parameter value to the updated coding parameter value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “a request to update network coding information for the wireless communication” and “updated network coding information” as taught by Welin, in the system of Brueck, so that it would provide efficient installed communication resources in Network Coding controlled communication networks in order to meet future demands for increased transmission rates of data (Welin, paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 2, Brueck discloses the transmitting device is a first user equipment (UE) and the receiving device is a second UE (Fig. 5, paragraph [0043], UEs 120a-120d are part of same network).
Regarding claim 3, Brueck discloses the at least one processor is further configured to cause the base station to send one or more configurations for the updated network coding information to the transmitting device and the receiving device (Fig. 5, paragraph [0043], eNB 110 sends data to four UEs (relays in the illustration) 120 a-120 d deployed on four train cars. UEs 120 a-120 d are a part of the same network coding group M).
Regarding claim 4, Brueck discloses to transmit the updated network coding information, the at least one processor is configured to transmit the updated network coding information to the transmitting device and the receiving device in response to at least one of the request from the transmitting device or the request from the receiving device (Figs.5, 11, 13C, paragraphs [0059], [0060], [0067], [0072], network coded packet based on ACK/NACK and scrambling a PDCCH message with the network coding identifier).
While Brueck implicitly refers to “a request to update network coding information” and “updated network coding information”, Welin from the same or similar field of endeavor explicitly discloses a request to update network coding information for the wireless communication (paragraphs [0058]-[0060], [0074]-[0075], instruction message to increase or decrease overshoot) and updated network coding information (paragraphs [0058]-[0060], [0074]-[0075], updated coding parameter value and adjusts current coding parameter value to the updated coding parameter value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “a request to update network coding information for the wireless communication” and “updated network coding information” as taught by Welin, in the system of Brueck, so that it would provide efficient installed communication resources in Network Coding controlled communication networks in order to meet future demands for increased transmission rates of data (Welin, paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 5, Brueck in view of Welin disclose the apparatus according to claim 1.
Welin further discloses the transmitting device or the receiving device is a user equipment (UE) with which the base station exchanges encoded data packets, and the request is from the UE (Fig. 4, paragraphs [0074]-[0075], network decoding module determines a performance of the decoding).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the transmitting device or the receiving device is a user equipment (UE) with which the base station exchanges encoded data packets, and the request is from the UE” as taught by Welin, in the system of Brueck, so that it would provide efficient installed communication resources in Network Coding controlled communication networks in order to meet future demands for increased transmission rates of data (Welin, paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 6, Brueck discloses the request is in uplink control information (UCI) or a medium access control-control element (MAC-CE) from the transmitting device or the receiving device (paragraph [0063], PUCCH format that supports large ACK/NACK).
Regarding claim 9, Brueck discloses wherein to transmit the updated network coding information, the at least one processor is configured to transmit the updated network coding information to the at least one of the transmitting device or the receiving device in at least one of: a radio resource control (RRC) configuration, a medium access control-control element (MAC-CE), or downlink control information (DCI) (paragraph [0059], in the DCI format in accordance with the present disclosure, in order to allow the device to decode an XOR combined packet, the modulation and coding scheme (MCS) must be signaled for the XOR group of size K).
Regarding claim 10, Brueck discloses at least one transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (Figs.5, 11, 13C, paragraphs [0078]-[0080], a network coding scenario operable by an evolved Node B (eNB) associating with plurality of UEs; implemented in hardware, software, firmware, or any combination).
Regarding claim 16, Brueck discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (Figs.5, 9-11, 13C, a network coding scenario operable by an evolved Node B (eNB) associating with plurality of UEs), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (paragraphs [0078]-[0080], implemented in hardware, software, firmware, or any combination) and configured to cause the UE to:
receive network coding information from a base station (paragraphs [0065]-[0066], RRC configuration including RNTIs for network coding of M UEs);
receive encoded data packets from a transmitting device (paragraphs [0043], [0071], NC code identifier facilitating identification and decoding data transmission);
transmit a request for a change in network coding parameters to the base station based on network coding performance being below a threshold (paragraphs [0060], [0067], uplink feedback based on its ability to decode the packets); and
receive updated network coding information from the base station in response to the request (paragraphs [0059], [0072], scrambling a PDCCH message with the network coding identifier).
While Brueck implicitly refers to “a request for a change in network coding parameters to the base station based on network coding performance being below a threshold” and “updated network coding information”, Welin from the same or similar field of endeavor explicitly discloses a request for a change in network coding parameters to the base station based on network coding performance being below a threshold (paragraphs [0058]-[0060], [0074]-[0075], instruction message to increase or decrease overshoot) and updated network coding information (paragraphs [0058]-[0060], [0074]-[0075], updated coding parameter value and adjusts current coding parameter value to the updated coding parameter value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “a request for a change in network coding parameters to the base station based on network coding performance being below a threshold” and “updated network coding information” as taught by Welin, in the system of Brueck, so that it would provide efficient installed communication resources in Network Coding controlled communication networks in order to meet future demands for increased transmission rates of data (Welin, paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 22, Brueck discloses a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the UE is configured to receive the network coding information, transmit the request, and receive the updated network coding information via the transceiver (Figs.5, 11, 13C, paragraphs [0059]-[0060], [0065]-[0067], [0072], [0078]-[0080], network coding scenario operable by an evolved Node B (eNB) associating with plurality of UE and implemented in hardware, software, firmware, or any combination).
Regarding claim 23, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 25, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 26, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 27, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 28, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 31, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 32, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claim 33, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 17.
7. Claims 7-8, 18-20, 29-30 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brueck et al. (US 2013/0148563 A1), hereinafter “Brueck” in view of WELIN et al. (US 2018/0331781 A1), hereinafter “Welin” in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0063211 A1), hereinafter “Kim”.
Regarding claim 7, Brueck in view of Welin disclose the apparatus according to claim 1.
While Brueck in view of Welin implicitly refer to “the updated network coding information includes one or more of: a network coding algorithm, at least one network coding parameter, a trigger to switch network coding algorithms, or a time offset to the network coding algorithms”, Kim from the same or similar field of endeavor explicitly discloses the updated network coding information includes one or more of: a network coding algorithm, at least one network coding parameter, a trigger to switch network coding algorithms, or a time offset to the network coding algorithms (Fig. 10, paragraph [0099], in operation 1055, the BSs (or APs) 1010 and 1020 may transmit scheduling information of packet transmission updated through operations 1052 and 1054 to the UE 1030; that is, the BSs (or APs) 1010 and 1020 may transmit information on the packet combinations and the transmission sequences of the packet combinations to the UE 1030)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the updated network coding information includes one or more of: a network coding algorithm, at least one network coding parameter, a trigger to switch network coding algorithms, or a time offset to the network coding algorithms” as taught by Kim, in the combined system of Brueck and Welin, so that it would provide performance of a multipath protocol improved by preventing a packet loss and a coding gain using the network coding (Kim, paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 8, Brueck discloses the updated network coding information includes the at least one network coding parameter, comprising a decoding procedure (paragraph [0059], decoding XOR combined packet).
Regarding claim 18, Brueck in view of Welin disclose the apparatus according to claim 16.
While Brueck in view of Welin implicitly refer to “the network coding performance is based on network decoding results of the UE”, Kim from the same or similar field of endeavor explicitly discloses the network coding performance is based on network decoding results of the UE (Figs. 6, 10, paragraphs [0067]-[0068], [0095], [0100], packets decoding corresponding packets to reproduce contents corresponding to the packets).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the network coding performance is based on network decoding results of the UE” as taught by Kim, in the combined system of Brueck and Welin, so that it would provide performance of a multipath protocol improved by preventing a packet loss and a coding gain using the network coding (Kim, paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 29, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 30, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 34, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 18.
Regarding claim 35, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 36, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 20.
Conclusion
8. 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 SITHU KO whose telephone number is 571-272-8647. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pmEST.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at 571-272-7884. 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.
/SITHU KO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights