DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 Apr 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. In particular, this Application is the national stage application of an international application that was filed on 24 Jun 2021.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements, submitted on 9 Oct 2023, 6 May 2025, 27 Jul 2026, and 17 Sept 2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-13 and 21-26 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.
Response to Arguments
The Reply alleges “Babaei still does not disclose independently configured network coding functions for encoding an initial transmission and encoding a retransmission.” Reply, 13. To support its assertion, the Reply discusses paragraphs 172-173 of Babaei and finds that they “address different identifiers for different RLC entities.” Id. at 12. It is unclear how two “different” RLC entities, each with different identifiers and receiving different signaling, cannot constitute the claimed “independently configured,” “network coding” functions. As previously discussed, the use of two, different identifiers enable each RLC entity to operate independently. For example, one RLC entity may be used for multicasting retransmission, while the other RLC entity may be used for unicasting retransmission. Id. at ¶173. In another example, a first information element (IE) indicates the first RLC entity is in acknowledgement mode (AM), which a second IE indicates that the second RLC entity is also in AM. Id. at ¶179. As a part of the configuration parameters, the first RLC entity may be configured with a retransmission timer, while the second RLC entity maybe not be configured with a retransmission timer. Id. at ¶192. As a result, the second RLC entity retransmits a packet, while the first RLC entity does not. Id., figure 26. Therefore, the combination of Lagrange and Babaei teaches two RLC entities that execute functions that are “independently configured.”
The most recent claim amendments require “a first network coding function, for enabling an initial transmission,” and “a second network coding function, for encoding a retransmission.” E.g. claim 1. As noted in the previous paragraph, the prior art teaches two independent coding functions (i.e. a first and second network coding functions). If, for the sake of argument, the findings in the previous paragraph are valid, then whether the claim amendments overcome the prior art turns on whether one coding function is “for encoding an initial transmission” and a second coding function is “for encoding a retransmission.” In both Lagrange and Babaei, the protocol stacks of the transmitting device “encode” a transmission. Lagrange, figure 5; Babaei, figure 2A and 21. In Babaei, the protocol stack for “Multicast TX” encodes an “initial” transmission, while a protocol stack for “Unicast TX” encodes a retransmission. Babaei, figure 21 and ¶159. As a result, the obviousness rejection is maintained in light of the most recent claim amendments.
The Reply also notes that the amendments to the independent claims originated from subject matter found in objected-to claims. Reply, 12. As discussed in the interview on 3 Feb 2026, the claimed invention needs to preclude options 0 and 3 in table 1 of the disclosure to overcome the cited teachings of the prior art. At present, claim 1 still allows for option 3, where both initial and retransmission coding is enabled.
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, 2, 3, 5, 15-18, 20, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lagrange (US 20230198671) in view of Babaei (US 20240064831).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Lagrange teaches a method for wireless communication performed by a user equipment and an apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment, comprising: a processor; a memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and operable, when executed by the processor, to cause the apparatus to perform the method, comprising:
receiving, from a network device, radio resource control (RRC) message comprising an initial transmission parameter indicating whether a first network coding function, for encoding an initial transmission, is enabled or disabled for an initial transmission from a first radio link control (RLC) entity (Lagrange, ¶180 and figure 5 – receiver 520, which may be receive data in the downlink direction, and the transmitter 510 includes two RLC layers 513 and 514; Lagrange, ¶205 and figure 8 – RRC message 809 from base station 802 includes NC [network coding] configuration parameters; Lagrange, ¶208 – as a result of the process in figure 8, network coding is activated [i.e. enabled]) . . .;
receiving, from the first RLC entity of the network device, the initial transmission, the initial transmission comprising a set of initial data units (Lagrange, ¶¶201, 277 and figure 5 – NC configuration includes the number of transmission legs [i.e. RLC layers 513 and 514] that will be used to transmit user data);
transmitting, to the network device, a status data unit comprising a set of status indicators, one or more status indicators of the set of status indicators indicating a reception failure based on the set of initial data units satisfying a failure condition (Lagrange, ¶¶180-181 – receiver transmits ACK/NACK packets when a data packet was not received [i.e. a failure]).
Lagrange does not explicitly teach (1) an RLC layer “associated with a multicast radio bearer (MRB) and a retransmission parameter indicating a second network coding function, for encoding a retransmission, is enabled for a retransmission from a second RLC entity associated with the MRB, the first network coding function and the second network coding function being independently configured” or (2) “receiving, from the second RLC entity of the network device, the retransmission in accordance with the retransmission parameter, the retransmission comprising a set of retransmission data units encoded in accordance with the second network coding function being enabled, both the retransmission and the set of retransmission data units being received based on the one or more status indicators indicating the reception failure.” However, Babaei teaches (1) an RLC layer that supports multicast and broadcast (MBS) bearers (Babaei, ¶149), where the RLC layer can be configured in an acknowledged mode (AM). Babaei, ¶150. A UE receives configuration parameters from a gNB, which indicate an AM RLC entity (i.e. enabled to network encoding/decoding for retransmission). Id. at ¶¶181, 188; see also id., figure 19 and ¶134 for RLC AM entity performing ARQ procedures. Babei also teaches (2) two RLC entities of a gNB that are in AM. Id. at ¶179 and figure 26. The second RLC entity is used for retransmission of the MBS data. Id. at ¶183 (“the second radio link layer (RLC) entity may be used for unicast retransmission of the multicast and broadcast services (MBS) data” [i.e. the MBS data is encoded in accordance with the protocol stack used for the unicast retransmission]). The retransmission is in response to a NACK. Id. at ¶¶155, 184. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the second RLC layer, taught by Lagrange, for retransmission of MBS data, as taught by Babaei, in order to implement a shadow RLC entity for unicast retransmission. Id. at ¶169.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lagrange and Babaei also teaches reconstructing one or more data units based on decoding and combining one or more retransmission data units of the set of retransmission data units and one or more initial data units of the set of initial data units. Lagrange, figure 4 and ¶164 (any two of the even, odd, comb1, and comb2 can be used to reconstruct the original PDU); Lagrange, ¶174 (any one of the four can be retransmitted).
Regarding claims 3 and 18, the combination of Lagrange and Babaei also teaches wherein the set of status indicators comprise one or more of an indication of each initial data unit of the set of initial data units associated with a successful reception, an indication for each initial data unit missing from the set of initial data units, an indication of a quantity of additional data units needed by the UE to decode the set of initial data units (Babaei, ¶136 – sequence number of highest PDU submitted to the lower layer), an indication of a total quantity of successfully decoded initial data units from the set of initial data units, an indication of each initial data unit of the set of initial data units that is missing a sub-sequence number (sub-SN), or an indication of a rate adjustment command. Babaei, ¶¶155, 184 (NACK indicates unsuccessful transmission [i.e. missing data]).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, the combination of Lagrange and Babaei also teaches wherein a total quantity of the set of retransmission data units is based on the indication of the quantity of additional data units. In claims 3 and 18, “an indication of a quantity of additional data units needed by the UE to decode the set of initial data units” is an optional limitation. The prior art is cited for teaching at least one other option in the rejection of claims 3 and 18. Further limiting an optional limitation does not result in a dependent claim that would be allowable if incorporated into the independent claim, unless the other available options are removed.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lagrange and Babaei also teaches wherein: the initial transmission parameter indicates the first network coding function is enabled for the initial transmission (Lagrange, ¶205 and figure 8 – RRC message 809 from base station 802 includes NC [network coding] configuration parameters); the set of initial data units comprises two or more initial data units based on the first network coding function being enabled for the initial transmission (Lagrange, figure 3 and ¶¶155-156 – prior to transmission, the PDU is split into two part – odd and even); and the method further comprises generating a generator matrix associated with the first network coding function based on receiving the set of initial data units. Lagrange, ¶175 (matrices used to decode PDU).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lagrange and Babaei also teaches wherein the status data unit is one status data unit of a plurality of status data units (Babaei, ¶174 – plurality of RLC acknowledgements, one for each reference signal), each status data unit of the plurality of status data units being aperiodically transmitted based on receiving a respective trigger from the MRB. Babaei, ¶¶175, 187 and figure 25 (UE [aperiodically] transmits a NACK when triggered by a signal strength below a threshold).
Regarding claims 17 and 30, Lagrange teaches a method for wireless communication performed by a network device and an apparatus for wireless communications at a network device, comprising: a processor; a memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and operable, when executed by the processor, to cause the apparatus to perform the method, comprising:
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE) from the network device, radio resource control (RRC) message comprising an initial transmission parameter indicating whether a first network coding function, for encoding an initial transmission, is enabled or disabled for the initial transmission from a first radio link control (RLC) entity of the network device (Lagrange, ¶180 and figure 5 – transmitter 510, which may be transmit in the downlink direction, making it a network device, includes two RLC layers 513 and 514; Lagrange, ¶205 and figure 8 – RRC message 809 from base station 802 includes NC [network coding] configuration parameters; Lagrange, ¶208 – as a result of the process in figure 8, network coding is activated [i.e. enabled]) . . .;
transmitting, from the first RLC entity to the UE, a set of initial data units associated with the initial transmission in accordance with the initial transmission parameter (Lagrange, ¶¶201, 277 and figure 5 – NC configuration includes the number of transmission legs [i.e. RLC layers 513 and 514] that will be used to transmit user data);
receiving, from the UE, a status data unit comprising a set of status indicators, one or more status indicators of the set of status indicators indicating a reception failure (Lagrange, ¶¶180-181 – transmitter receives ACK/NACK packets when a data packet was not received [i.e. a failure]).
Lagrange does not explicitly teach (1) one of its RLC layers “associated with a multicast radio bearer (MRB) and a retransmission parameter indicating a second network coding function, for encoding a retransmission, is enabled for the retransmission from a second RLC entity of the network device associated with the MRB, the first network coding function and the second network coding function being independently configured, the initial transmission parameter and the retransmission parameter being distinct parameters in the RRC message” or (2) “transmitting, from the second RLC entity to the UE, a set of retransmission data units encoded in accordance with the second network coding function being enabled, associated with the retransmission, the set of retransmission data units being transmitted based on the one or more status indicators indicating the reception failure.” However, Babaei teaches (1) an RLC layer that supports multicast and broadcast (MBS) bearers (Babaei, ¶149), where the RLC layer can be configured in an acknowledged mode (AM). Babaei, ¶150. A UE receives configuration parameters from a gNB, which indicate an AM RLC entity. Id. at ¶¶181, 188; see also id., ¶¶176-178 (RRC message with separate IEs for each RLC entity). Babei also teaches (2) two RLC entities of a gNB that are in AM. Id. at ¶179 and figure 26. The second RLC entity is used for retransmission of the MBS data. Id. at ¶183 (“the second radio link layer (RLC) entity may be used for unicast retransmission of the multicast and broadcast services (MBS) data” [i.e. the MBS data is retransmitted in accordance with the protocol stack used for unicast transmission]). The retransmission is in response to a NACK. Id. at ¶¶155, 184. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the second RLC layer, taught by Lagrange, for retransmission of MBS data, as taught by Babaei, in order to implement a shadow RLC entity for unicast retransmission. Id. at ¶169.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Lagrange and Babaei also teaches the RRC message indicates the first network coding function is enabled for the initial transmission (Lagrange, ¶205 and figure 8 – RRC message 809 from base station 802 includes NC [network coding] configuration parameters); and the set of initial data units comprises two or more initial data units based on the first network coding function being enabled for the initial transmission (Lagrange, figure 3 and ¶¶155-156 – prior to transmission, the PDU is split into two part – odd and even).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Lagrange and Babaei also teaches transmitting, to the UE, a signal to trigger a transmission of the status data unit; and receiving, from the UE, the status data unit based on transmitting the trigger. Babaei, ¶174 (network node transmits a reference signal, which triggers the UE to transmit an RLC acknowledgement).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Lagrange and Babaei also teaches scheduling the retransmission regardless of receiving the status data unit. Lagrange, ¶¶158,161 (in Lagrange, the linear combination packets, comb1 and comb2, are always transmitted with the even and odd PDUs). At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to always transmit the linear combination packets, as taught by Lagrange, instead of utilizing a NACK as a trigger for retransmission, as taught by Babaei, in order to meet the requested QoS level. Id. at ¶¶197, 201.
Claims 14 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lagrange (US 20230198671) in view of Babaei (US 20240064831) and further in view of Shirivastava (US 20240031066).
Regarding claim 14 and 27, the combination of Lagrange and Babaei teaches the methods of claims 1 and 17, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the status data unit is one status data unit of a plurality of status data units that are periodically transmitted based on a timer” or “transmitting, to the UE, a configuration for a periodic feedback timer; and receiving the status data unit based on an expiration of the periodic feedback timer.” However, Shirivastava teaches a status report that is transmitted at the expiration of a periodic timer. Shirivastava, ¶188 (supported by pg. 8, lines 19-27 of earliest filed foreign priority document). A network entity provides a parameter in an RRC reconfiguration message for status reporting. Id. at ¶188. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to trigger status reports using a timer, as taught by Shirivastava, when providing the acknowledgement information, taught by the combination of Lagrange and Babaei, in order to ensure low latency if required. Id. at ¶86.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, including figure 10 of Jiang, which shows two RLC entities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN S LAMONT whose telephone number is (571)270-7514 and email address is benjamin.lamont@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03, which allows for written authorization via the USPTO electronic filing system or mail, but not via email). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am to 3pm EST.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/Benjamin Lamont/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights