DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/17/2026 has been entered.
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 Amendment
This Action is in response to RCE with amendments/ remarks filed on 01/17/2026.
Claims 1, 10, 17 and 19 have been amended. Claims 2-4 have been cancelled.
Claims 1 and 19 are independent. Claim 17 was amended to be dependent on claim 1.
Claims 1, 5-20 are presented for examination, and remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections
In the final office Action mailed on 09/17/2025, claim 10 was objected to because of minor informalities. In the response filed on 01/17/2026, applicant amends the claim to obviate the objection. These amendments are acceptable, and as a result, the respective claim objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments, see page 13 of REMARKS, filed 01/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim(s) 1 and 19 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The incorporation of limitations from claims 2-4 (now cancelled) into claims 1 and 19 renders the 102 rejections of independent claims moot. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously cited prior arts to XIE et al. (hereinafter, XIE, EP 3073661 B1) and ZHU et al. (hereinafter, ZHU, EP 4089936 A1).
Response to Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant's amendment/ arguments, see page 13-17 of REMARKS, filed 01/17/2026, with respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the response filed on 01/17/2026, applicant puts forth in substance that:
“Claim 1 patently defines over the cited art for at least the reason that the cited art fails to disclose the features emphasized above.
Specifically, Gardner does not disclose:
wherein the evaluation unit is configured to evaluate the header of the second data packet as to whether the header of the second data packet comprises coding information for decoding the first data of the second data packet;
wherein the evaluation unit is configured to evaluate the header of the second data packet as to whether the header of the second data packet comprises a coding coefficient which the second network unit has used for coding the first data in the second data packet.” (See page 13-15 of REMARKS, filed 01/17/2026).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Gardner for new limitations in claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on cited reference to Gardner for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
“The Office action acknowledged that Gardner did not teach these features, but asserted that Zhu did. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
According to amended claim 1 second data are combined with the first data in a second data packet, and the evaluation unit is configured to evaluate the header of the second data packet as to whether the header of the second data packet comprises a coding coefficient which the second network unit has used for coding the first data in the second data packet.
According to this, first data and second data are combined in a second data packet, and the second data packet comprises the coding coefficient in the header of the second data packet.
However, Zhu mainly relates to two types of packets, namely network coded packets and PDUs. Zhu describes in paragraph 11 that a PDU is generated based on K network coded packets.
The citation in the Office Action refers to paragraph 13 of Zhu, which states: "header information of a first network coded packet includes information used to indicate a coding coefficient of the last network coded packet."
This however, does not disclose the above feature of amended claim 1, because in Zhu, the coding coefficient used for a last network coded packet is comprised by the first network coded packet, i.e., a different network coded packet than where the encoded data is located. In contrast, in claim 1, the coded first data is located in the same second data packet, as well as the coding coefficient, that is located in the header of the same second data packet.
Insofar as the Office Action refers to paragraph 3 of Zhu, that paragraph discloses that each coded packet includes one coded data unit and a coding coefficient. Significantly, however, Zhu does not disclose that in such a (network coded) packet, the second data would be combined with first data.
Even if one was to argue that in Zhu, a PDU combines K network coded packets and thus different data in the different network coded packets are combined within a PDU, then it is counter-argued that in Zhu, the header of the individual network coded packet comprises the coding coefficient, but not the header of the PDU.
Thus, by combining Zhu with the other prior art, the person skilled in the art does not arrive at the feature combination of amended claim 1.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of claim 1 should be withdrawn.” (See page 15-16 of REMARKS, filed 01/17/2026).
In response to the applicant’s allegation that the Office action asserted that Zhu taught the highlighted features, it is noted that the argued limitations were previously recited in claims 3 and 4, and the references to XIE et al. (hereinafter, XIE, EP 3073661 B1) and ZHU et al. (hereinafter, ZHU, EP 4089936 A1) were relied upon to make rejections for claims 3 and 4 respectively, rather than only Zhu reference as alleged by the applicant.
Examiner notes that ZHU depicts network coded packet (PDU) comprising of K obtained network coded packets (see example in Fig.7 reproduced herein below).
PNG
media_image1.png
272
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Generating the PDU based on the K network coded packets includes segmenting the last network coded packet in the K network coded packets to obtain a plurality of network coded packet segments, where a first network coded packet segment includes header information of the last network coded packet; based on the header information, decoding by using the first network coded packet segment; header information of a first network coded packet includes information used to indicate a coding coefficient of the last network coded packet (see [0011]-[0014]).
Examiner articulates that network coded packet (PDU) corresponds to the second data packet in the claim. Such articulation is valid because as seen in Fig.7 above, PDU based on the K obtained network coded packets is also a “to-be-sent network coded packet”, and contains multiple data packet in self, similar to concept recited in claim 1 where “second data are combined with first data in a second data packet” (see line 8 of claim 1). In addition, the examiner also articulates that “the last network coded packet” corresponds to the first data packet in the claim. Therefore, “header information of a network coded packet including information used to indicate a coding coefficient of the last network coded packet” as taught in the reference corresponds to “the header of the second data packet comprises a coding coefficient which the second network unit has used for coding the first data in the second data packet” in the claim.
Furthermore, ZHU in paragraph [0109] clearly teaches that the header information of the ith network coded packet may further include information used to indicate a coding coefficient of a jth network coded packet in the R network coded packets, where j is a positive integer from 1 to R, and j is unequal to i. In other words, the header information of the ith network coded packet may include information used to indicate a coding coefficient of another network coded packet.
Therefore, examiner disagrees that ZHU fails to teach the argued limitation (previously recited in claim 4, which has since been cancelled).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the header of the individual network coded packet comprises the coding coefficient, but not the header of the PDU) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments for independent claims (see page 16-17 of REMARKS, filed 01/17/2026) appear to stem from the applicant's assertion that the cited reference fails to disclose the similarly recited limitations of claim 1. However, as set forth above, this assertion does not hold ground, and therefore, the current rejection of record for the independent claim persist.
Applicant's arguments for the dependent claims (see page 16-17 of REMARKS, filed 01/17/2026) appear to stem from the applicant's assertion that the cited reference fails to disclose all the limitations of respective independent claims. However, as set forth above, this assertion does not hold ground, and therefore, the rejection for the dependent claims persist.
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Regarding Claim 17, the applicant indicates that the claim has been amended to insert a dependency upon claim 1 (see page 13 of REMARKS filed 01/17/2026). Currently amended claim 17 recite:
A communications network, comprising… an apparatus for determining a transmission quality in a communications network according to claim 1… (see lines 1-5).
The claim then continues to recite limitations that were also recited in previous version of claim 1 and claim 17, but does not include new limitations that were added to claim 1.
Examiner notes that by being dependent upon claim 1, claim 17 is construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Therefore, the four “wherein” clauses of claim 17 are just repeating what is already in claim 1, and redundant.
Examiner also notes that by not incorporating the three newly added “wherein” clauses of claim 1 but keeping the previous four “wherein” clauses as is on claim 17 make it more confusing. It is not clear whether or not the applicant intended to include all the new limitations from cancelled claims 2-4 into claim 17 as well. Since applicant made it clear that the claim 17 has been amended to insert a dependency upon claim 1, examiner obliges by reading all the limitations of claim 1 into dependent claim 17 as well.
Applicant is suggested to remove all the “wherein” clauses of claim 17 and only keep lines 1-5.
Claim 17 depends on claim 1 and recites “a first network unit” (see line 2), “a second network unit” (see lines 3 and 9), etc. These elements are also recited in independent claim 1. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “the first network unit”, “the second network unit”, etc. in the claim 17. For e.g., it cannot be ascertained if these are referring back to entities of claim 1, or those of claim 17. It is also not clear if these entities in both the claims are same or different.
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 in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9, 12, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner (US 20190394654 A1) in view of XIE et al. (hereinafter, XIE, EP 3073661 B1) in view of ZHU et al. (hereinafter, ZHU, EP 4089936 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gardner discloses an apparatus (see Fig.1D:298-299 in view of [0061]; communication network 100 may include cellular base stations) for determining a transmission quality (see [0133]) in a communications network (see Fig.1D:100 in view of [0061]-[0067]; the communication network 100 can operate as an ad-hoc mesh network),
wherein a first network unit (see Fig.1D:198 and/or 199) of the communications network (see Fig.1D:100) is configured to perform a first data transmission, in that first data, to be sent from the first network unit, are transmitted in such a way that a first data packet depends on the first data (see [0079]; the packet is received by the device 110 from the node 199; also see [0090]; The device 110 may store received packets that are to be retransmitted to other nodes; the device 110 may receive a packet from the device 198 during the first phase... The CPU 120 may then store the packet received from the device 198 in the (N+1) phase memory storage 155; also see [0081]; the CPU 120 determines that the received packet is a data packet; also see [0053]; a data packet may correspond to a packet containing data that is being transmitted to a destination device),
wherein a second network unit (see Fig.1D:110) of the communications network (see Fig.1D:100) is configured to perform a second data transmission (see [0090]; CPU 120 would then transmit a packet from the device 110 during the third phase), in that second data, to be sent from the second network unit, are transmitted in such a way that the second data are combined with the first data in a second data packet (see [0016]; aggregating data within a communication network; also see [0076]; a node can receive and transmit updates related to routing paths and/or links, and can continuously aggregate the latest indications of performance into the link characteristics and routing path characteristics; also see [0091]; After receiving a first packet during the (N+1)-phase and a second packet during the (N+2) phase, the CPU 120 ... allows for multiple packets received by the device 110 to be simultaneously transmitted to a plurality of nodes; CPU 120 performing an exclusive-or (XOR) operation using the first packet stored in the (N+1)-phase memory storage 155 and the second packet stored in the (N+2)-phase memory storage 156. In some embodiments, the CPU 120 may store the resulting packet of the network coding XOR-operation in the N-phase memory storage 154. During the phase assigned to the device 110, the CPU 120 may cause the transceiver 132 to transmit the packet stored in the N-phase memory storage 154 to one or more recipient nodes (e.g., node 298 and node 299 of FIG. 1B); also see [0104]; coupling two signals/data sets headed in the same direction into a single packet),
wherein the apparatus (see Fig.1D:298-299 in view of [0059]; Each of devices 110, 198, 199, 298, and 299 may be the same, or operate in a similar manner using the same or similar components, as the device 110) comprises a receiving unit (see Fig.1D:130- "Communication Module"; also see [0045]; communication module 130 includes transceiver 132) configured to receive the second data transmission (see [0091]; the CPU 120 may cause the transceiver 132 to transmit the packet stored in the N-phase memory storage 154 to one or more recipient nodes (e.g., node 298 and node 299 of FIG. 1B); also see [0092]; also see last 4 lines of [0072]; a packet will be delivered to the destination), and
wherein the apparatus (see Fig.1D:298-299) comprises an evaluation unit (see [0007]-[0010]; mesh network includes nodes/ devices with processors configured to analyze a packet) configured to determine a first quality of the first data transmission and/or a second quality of the second data transmission, in that the evaluation unit evaluates the second data packet (see [0133]; In addition to carrying informational payload, a data packet transmitted between a pair of nodes can serve as an indication of link quality. The network device thus can aggregate the indication of link quality into the link characteristics for the link via which the data packet arrived. For example, the network device can process a timestamp of the data packet to assess the propagation delay of the link, check the bit-error rate, measuring the signal-to-noise ratio, etc.);
wherein the evaluation unit is configured to determine whether the first data transmission from the first network unit to the second network unit has taken place successfully, in that the evaluation unit evaluates a header of the second data packet (see [0139]; the packet header is analyzed, by the CPU to determine whether the packet is a data packet; also see [0133]-[0134]; a data packet transmitted between a pair of nodes can serve as an indication of link quality. The network device thus can aggregate the indication of link quality into the link characteristics for the link via which the data packet arrived. For example, the network device can process a timestamp of the data packet to assess the propagation delay of the link, check the bit-error rate, measuring the signal-to-noise ratio, etc. In some embodiments, each data packet can carry additional information regarding the transmitting node (e.g., signal strength) which the network device receiving the data packet can use; successful delivery of a data packet can trigger an update that propagates backward along the routing path from the destination device).
Although, and as set forth above, Gardner discloses wherein the evaluation unit is configured to evaluate the header of the second data packet (see [0139]; the packet header is analyzed, by the CPU), Gardner does not explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation unit is configured to evaluate the header of the second data packet as to whether the header of the second data packet comprises coding information for decoding the first data of the second data packet; and wherein the evaluation unit is configured to evaluate the header of the second data packet as to whether the header of the second data packet comprises a coding coefficient which the second network unit has used for coding the first data in the second data packet.
XIE discloses wherein the evaluation unit is configured to evaluate the header of the second data packet as to whether the header of the second data packet comprises coding information for decoding the first data of the second data packet (see [0020]-[0021]; encoded data packets carry serial numbers; data receiving end decodes according to the serial numbers in received data packet headers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of XIE with Gardner so that the evaluation unit is configured to evaluate the header of the second data packet as to whether the header of the second data packet comprises coding information for decoding the first data of the second data packet.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to effectively improve the transmission efficiency and reduce the transmission overhead (XIE: [0073] lines 1-4).
Although, and as set forth above, Gardner discloses wherein the evaluation unit is configured to evaluate the header of the second data packet (see [0139]; the packet header is analyzed, by the CPU), Gardner does not explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation unit is configured to evaluate the header of the second data packet as to whether the header of the second data packet comprises a coding coefficient which the second network unit has used for coding the first data in the second data packet.
ZHU discloses wherein the evaluation unit is configured to evaluate the header of the second data packet as to whether the header of the second data packet comprises a coding coefficient which the second network unit has used for coding the first data in the second data packet (see Fig.7 that depicts network coded packet (PDU) comprising of K obtained network coded packets; also see [0011]-[0014]; generating the PDU based on the K network coded packets includes segmenting the last network coded packet in the K network coded packets to obtain a plurality of network coded packet segments, where a first network coded packet segment includes header information of the last network coded packet; based on the header information, decoding by using the first network coded packet segment; header information of a first network coded packet includes information used to indicate a coding coefficient of the last network coded packet; also see [0109] clearly teaches that the header information of the ith network coded packet may include information used to indicate a coding coefficient of another network coded packet; examiner articulates that network coded packet (PDU) corresponds to the second data packet in the claim, and that “the last network coded packet” corresponds to the first data packet in the claim; therefore, “header information of a network coded packet including information used to indicate a coding coefficient of the last network coded packet” as taught in the reference corresponds to “the header of the second data packet comprises a coding coefficient which the second network unit has used for coding the first data in the second data packet” in the claim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of ZHU with Gardner and XIE so that the evaluation unit is configured to evaluate the header of the second data packet as to whether the header of the second data packet comprises a coding coefficient which the second network unit has used for coding the first data in the second data packet.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve spectral efficiency (ZHU: [0012]).
Regarding claim 5, Gardner (modified by XIE and ZHU) discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, including wherein the receiving unit is configured to receive the second data transmission (see [0091]-[0092] in view of Fig.1D; the CPU 120 may cause the transceiver 132 to transmit the packet stored in the N-phase memory storage 154 to one or more recipient nodes (e.g., node 298 and node 299 of FIG. 1B)),
wherein the evaluation unit is configured to determine a first quality of the first data transmission and/or a second quality of the second data transmission, in that the evaluation unit evaluates the second data packet (see [0133] in view of Fig.1D).
The embodiment illustrated in Fig.1D of Gardner does not explicitly disclose wherein the receiving unit is configured to receive the first data transmission, wherein the evaluation unit evaluates the first data packet.
However, in a different embodiment, Gardner discloses,
wherein the receiving unit is configured to receive the first data transmission (see [0067]; a new packet which the node forwarded to an adjacent node reaches the corresponding target device),
wherein the evaluation unit evaluates the first data packet (see [0133]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gardner with XIE and ZHU so that the receiving unit is configured to receive the first data transmission and the second data transmission, and wherein the evaluation unit is configured to determine a first quality of the first data transmission and/or a second quality of the second data transmission, in that the evaluation unit evaluates the first data packet and the second data packet.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as it improves/increases network efficiency, reduces the amount of processing needed to analyze/process/transmit/receive packets (Gardner: [0078]).
Regarding claim 9, Gardner (modified by XIE and ZHU) discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above. Gardner further discloses wherein the apparatus is configured to keep link statistics for each pair of one transmitting network unit and one receiving network unit from a group of network units of the communications network comprising the first network unit and the second network unit, which statistics record each successful data transmission, identified by the apparatus, from the transmitting network unit to the receiving network unit, as successful data transmission (see [0044]; device 110 may be configured to aggregate and store in the memory module characteristics of links via which the device 110 is communicates with other nodes (i.e., other devices, terminals, etc.) within a wireless communication network; also see [0052]; data corresponding to the link characteristics may correspond to the entire network or only a portion of the network (e.g., one or more neighbor nodes); also see [0053]; memory storage 144 may contain data corresponding to one or more destination addresses, next-node MAC addresses, adjacent node MAC addresses, priority numbers corresponding to the order in which a node is to receive a packet, and/or aggregate path characteristics; the data contained in the memory storage may be updated based on the performance of a packet that was transmitted from the device… after a message, acknowledging successful receipt of a transmitted packet from the device), and/or record each unsuccessful data transmission, identified by the apparatus, from the transmitting network unit to the receiving network unit, as unsuccessful data transmission.
Regarding claim 12, Gardner (modified by XIE and ZHU) discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, Gardner further discloses wherein the second network unit is configured to perform the second data transmission, in that the second data, to be sent from the second network unit, are transmitted in such a way that the second data are XOR-linked with the first data in the second data packet (see [0043]; also see [0054]; also see [0090]-[0091]; the CPU 120 may perform an XOR operation with the packet received during the first phase from packet 198 and a packet received during the second phase from packet 199. The CPU 120 may then cause the transceiver 132 to transmit the resulting packet), or that the second data are combined with the first data by means of a weighted addition, or that the second data are combined with the first data by a superposition in a Galois field.
Regarding claim 15, Gardner (modified by XIE and ZHU) discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, Gardner further discloses,
wherein the communications network is a wireless communications network (see Fig.1D:100 in view of [0061]-[0067]; the communication network can operate as an ad-hoc mesh (wireless) network),
wherein the first network unit (see Fig.1D:198 and/or 199) is a first wireless network unit (see [0044]; wireless communication network routing device 110; also see [0059]; Each of devices 110, 198, 199, 298, and 299 may be the same, or operate in a similar manner using the same or similar components, as the device 110),
wherein the second network unit (see Fig.1D:110) is a second wireless network unit (see [0044]; wireless communication network routing device 110),
wherein the receiving unit (see Fig.1D:130- "Communication Module") of the apparatus (see Fig.1D:298-299) is a receiving unit for receiving wireless data transmissions (see [0045]; communication module 130 includes transceiver 132).
Regarding claim 16, Gardner (modified by XIE and ZHU) discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, Gardner further discloses wherein apparatus is implemented as a base station of a wireless communications network (see Fig.1D:298-299 in view of [0061]; communication network 100 may include cellular base stations).
As for Claim(s) 17 and 19, the claims are directed to a communications network (see Gardner Fig.1D: 100 in view of [0061]-[0067]) comprising: a first network unit (see Gardner Fig.1D:198 and/or 199), a second network unit (see Gardner Fig.1D:110), and an apparatus (see Gardner Fig.1D:298-299 in view of [0061]) according to claim 1 for determining a transmission quality in a communications network (see [0133]) form (as in claim 17), and a method form (as in claim 19) to carry out the steps of claim 1, rather than the apparatus. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claims 17 and 19.
As for Claim 18, the claim depends on claim 17, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 15. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 15.
As for Claim 20, the claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a computer program (see [0048] and [0169]-[0170]) for implementing the method of claim 19, rather than the method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 19 applies equally as well to claim 20.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner (US 20190394654 A1) in view of XIE et al. (hereinafter, XIE, EP 3073661 B1) in view of ZHU et al. (hereinafter, ZHU, EP 4089936 A1) in view of Bowers et al. (hereinafter, Bowers, US 10958530 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Gardner (modified by XIE and ZHU) discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, including wherein the second network unit is configured to perform the second data transmission, in that the second data, to be sent from the second network unit, are transmitted in such a way that the second data are combined with the first data, as the second data packet (see Gardner [0016], [0076] and [0091]).
Gardner (modified by XIE and ZHU) does not explicitly disclose wherein the second network unit is configured to perform the second data transmission, in that the second data, to be sent from the second network unit, are transmitted in such a way that the second data are combined with the first data, as the second data packet, by superposition.
Bowers discloses wherein the second network unit is configured to perform the second data transmission, in that the second data, to be sent from the second network unit, are transmitted in such a way that the second data are combined with the first data, as the second data packet, by superposition (see Col.3: lines 6-26; also see Col.7: line 28 – Col.8: line 47 in view of Fig.3:312; generate a superposition by adding the selected fragments as multiplied by the coefficients… transmit the superposition to a client device over one or more of the communication links).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bowers with Gardner, XIE and ZHU so that the second network unit is configured to perform the second data transmission, in that the second data, to be sent from the second network unit, are transmitted in such a way that the second data are combined with the first data, as the second data packet, by superposition.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide low latency and high reliability while also improving bandwidth utilization (Bowers; see Col.3: lines 44-51).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner (US 20190394654 A1) in view of XIE et al. (hereinafter, XIE, EP 3073661 B1) in view of ZHU et al. (hereinafter, ZHU, EP 4089936 A1) in view of LIU et al. (hereinafter, LIU, WO 2013134357 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Gardner (modified by XIE and ZHU) discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, including wherein the second network unit is configured to combine the first data with the second data (see [0016], [0076] and [0091]).
Gardner (modified by XIE and ZHU) does not explicitly disclose wherein the second network unit is configured to combine the first data, which are combined using a first coding coefficient, with the second data, which are combined using a second coding coefficient, in the second data packet.
However, LIU discloses wherein the second network unit is configured to combine the first data, which are combined using a first coding coefficient, with the second data, which are combined using a second coding coefficient, in the second data packet (see [0010]; multiplying bits associated with the plurality of data blocks by a set of coefficients to generate a plurality of product values. The method may also include generating an encoded data packet having a plurality of encoded data blocks, wherein generating the encoded data packet comprises linearly combining the plurality of product values for respective data blocks of each of the plurality of data packets into corresponding encoded data blocks of the encoded data packet; also see [0030]-[0031] in view of Fig.3; also see [0034]-[0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of LIU with Gardner, XIE and ZHU so that the second network unit is configured to combine the first data, which are combined using a first coding coefficient, with the second data, which are combined using a second coding coefficient, in the second data packet.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide better performance (LIU: [0041]).
Regarding claim 14, Gardner (modified by XIE, ZHU and LIU) discloses the apparatus according to claim 13, as set forth above, including wherein the second network unit is configured to XOR-link the first data with the second data in the second data packet (in Gardner, see [0043]; also see [0054]; also see [0090]-[0091]; the CPU 120 may perform an XOR operation with the packet received during the first phase from packet 198 and a packet received during the second phase from packet 199. The CPU 120 may then cause the transceiver 132 to transmit the resulting packet).
Gardner (modified by XIE and ZHU) does not explicitly disclose that the first data are multiplies by a first coding coefficient and that the second data, which are multiplied by a second coding coefficient.
However, LIU further discloses wherein the second network unit is configured to XOR-link the first data, which are multiplied by a first coding coefficient, with the second data, which are multiplied by a second coding coefficient, in the second data packet (see [0010]; multiplying bits associated with the plurality of data blocks by a set of coefficients to generate a plurality of product values. The method may also include generating an encoded data packet having a plurality of encoded data blocks, wherein generating the encoded data packet comprises linearly combining the plurality of product values for respective data blocks of each of the plurality of data packets into corresponding encoded data blocks of the encoded data packet; also see [0030]-[0035] in view of Fig.3; also see background at [0008] that suggests XOR operation as known encoding option).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of LIU with Gardner, XIE and ZHU so that the second network unit is configured to XOR-link the first data, which are multiplied by a first coding coefficient, with the second data, which are multiplied by a second coding coefficient, in the second data packet.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide better performance (LIU: [0041]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Larsson (US 20100088568 A1) discloses relay transceiver may independently decide which data packets to retransmit, as well as when and how to encode them into composite packet.
AKL et al. (US 20210120478 A1) teaches a network node transmitting first set of packets and connection identifier to a decoder node via a path in wireless multi-hop network.
Ben Slimane et al. (US 20110026429 A1) discloses network coded data communication.
Effros et al. (US 7706365 B2) teaches randomized distributed network coding.
Medard et al. (US 20140269505 A1) enhances data transfer reliability and efficiency.
Sirkeci et al. (US 20090207930 A1) teaches distributed cooperative communication.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANDARVA KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8107. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI, 0800-1700.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached at 571-272-5863. 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.
/SANDARVA KHANAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453