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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/29/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 & 11 have been amended.
Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 made in the Final Rejection dated 4/7/2026 have been withdrawn based on amendments to claims 1 & 11, but new grounds of rejections to claims 1-20 have been made under 35 USC 103 based on new reference Zhu et al. (US 2022/0416939)(herein after “Zhu”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 6/29/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made under 35 USC 103 in view of new reference Zhu et al. (US 2022/0416939)(herein after “Zhu”).
Regarding claim 1, applicant submits that amendments to this claim traverse the rejection of this claim under 35 USC 103 made in the Final Rejection dated 4/7/2026. Examiner agrees and withdraws rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 made in the Final Rejection dated 4/7/2026. However, after further consideration, examiner introduces a new ground of rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 based on new reference Zhu. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claim 11, applicant submits that this claim traverses the rejection of this claim under 35 USC 103 made in the Final Rejection dated 4/7/2026 due to similar amendments and arguments as made for claim 1. Examiner agrees and withdraws rejection of claim 11 under 35 USC 103 made in the Final Rejection dated 4/7/2026. However, for the same reasons as discussed above, examiner introduces a new ground of rejection of claim 11 under 35 USC 103 based on new reference Zhu.
Regarding claims 2-10 & 12-20, applicant submits that these claims traverse the rejections of these claims under 35 USC 103 made in the Final Rejection dated 4/7/2026 due to amendments and arguments made for claims 1 & 11 and due to their dependency on claims 1 or 11. Examiner agrees and withdraws rejections of claims 2-10 & 12-20 under 35 USC 103 made in the Final Rejection dated 4/7/2026. However, for the same reasons as discussed above, examiner introduces new grounds of rejections of claims 2-10 & 12-20 under 35 USC 103 based on new reference Zhu.
Claim Interpretation
Several of the claims in the present application recite Markush groups in the format of “at least one of A, B and C”, “one of A, B and C” or “one or more of A, B and C”. For the purpose of this review, these Markush claims are being interpreted as a single element selection (i.e. either A, B or C) from a closed group of elements consisting of alternatives A, B and C. See MPEP §2117 for further details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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 present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 9, 11 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 2025/0158743)(herein after “Zhao”) in view of Meylan et al. (US 2018/0176816)(herein after “Meylan”) and further in view of Paladugu et al. (US 2022/0052788)(herein after “Paladugu”) and Zhu et al. (US 2022/0416939)(herein after “Zhu”).
Regarding claims 1 & 11, Zhao discloses a wireless transmit/receive unit, WTRU, comprising at least one processor ([0059] discloses a transmitting and receiving end that may be implemented at a wireless communication device such as a UE. [[0449] discloses that the UE (i.e. electronic device) may include at least one processor), and a method at a wireless transmit/receive unit, WTRU, ([0051] discloses a data processing method. [0059] discloses the method includes a transmitting and receiving end that may be implemented at a wireless communication device such as a UE.), the method comprising to, and the WTRU configured to:
obtain a set of service data units (SDUs), the set comprising at least one SDU (Fig 27 & [0385] disclose a first transmission node obtaining k source SDUs where k is greater than 0 (i.e. at least one SDU).);
perform network coding (NC) encoding on the set of service data units to obtain a set of packet data units (PDUs) (Fig 27 & [0385] disclose network coding of 4 SDUs to obtain 6 network coded PDUs.); and
attach a NC-specific sub-header ([0121] discloses network coding parameters sent through header information of a source packet.).
Zhao fails to disclose to assign an order sequence number (SN) to each PDU, the order SN depending on a type of PDU and indicating an order of the PDU among PDUs of the same type in the set of PDUs and being respectively unique to the set of PDUs; and send the set of PDUs to the receiver.
However, Meylan teaches to assign an order sequence number (SN) to each PDU, the order SN depending on a type of PDU and indicating an order of the PDU among PDUs of the same type in the set of PDUs and being respectively unique to the set of PDUs (Fig 4 & [0072]-[0073] discloses using a separate sequence number space for priority PDUs than a sequence number space for non-priority PDUs. Priority PDUs can be based on a priority packet type defined by a communication layer. The sequence numbers in the priority sequence number space indicate the order of the priority PDUs and the sequence numbers in the non-priority sequence number space indicate the order of the priority PDUs. Having separate sequence number spaces for priority PDUs and non-priority PDUs insures the sequence number for a given PDU is respectively unique to the entire set of priority PDUs plus non-priority PDUs. An example is provided where a subset of available sequence number space is allocated to non-priority PDUs (e.g. Sequence numbers 124, 125, 126) and the remaining space may be allocated to priority PDUs (e.g. Sequence number 887). A broadest reasonable interpretation is that the sequence space for non-priority PDUs could be 1-799, for example, and the sequence space for priority PDUs could be 800-1600).); and
send the set of PDUs to the receiver (Fig 4 and [0061] & [0087]-0088] disclose transmitting of the PDUs by a UE. Fig 5 & [0089]-[0090] disclose a receiver receiving the plurality of PDUs transmitted by the UE.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a WTRU, or a method where a WTRU to, obtain a set of SDUs, perform network coding on the SDUs to obtain a set of PDUs; and attach a NC-specific sub-header, as disclosed by Zhao, and assign an order sequence number (SN) to each PDU, the order SN depending on a type of PDU and indicating an order of the PDU among PDUs of the same type in the set of PDUs and being respectively unique to the set of PDUs; and send the set of PDUs to the receiver, as taught by Meylan. The motivation to do so would have been to have a UE, or a method for a UE to, transmit to a base station network coded PDUs based on a sequence number space for assigning sequence numbers to network coded PDUs that are based on a priority data type that is different than a sequence number space for network coded PDUs that are based on a non-priority data type, indicating whether each network coded PDU is a priority PDU or non-priority PDU and an associated sequence number from the respective sequence number space in a header of each network coded PDU and sending the network coded PDUs to a receiver so that a receiver can distinguish priority PDUs from non-priority PDUs and determine that PDUs with out of order sequence numbers that fall in the sequence number space for priority PDUs are to be treated with a higher priority than with sequence numbers falling in the sequence number space for non-priority PDUs.
Zhao fails to disclose wherein the attaching of a NC-specific sub-header is to each PDU, the sub-header comprising at least one of the order SN and the set SN.
However, Paladugu further teaches wherein the attaching of a NC-specific sub-header is to each PDU, the sub-header comprising at least one of the order SN and the set SN ([0150] discloses including control information for network coding in a header of an RLC PDU. Fig 10 and [0169] & [0175] disclose that the header of the PDU include a Sequence Number (i.e. a set SN) and a Sequence Order number (i.e. an order SN), as well as a network coding sub-header that comprises Sequence Numbers )i.e. set SNs) for multiple sequences.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a WTRU, or a method where a WTRU to, attach a NC-specific header, as disclosed Zhao, wherein the NC-specific header is attached to each PDU of a set of PDUs, the NC-specific header having a sub-header and comprising an order SN and a set SN, as further taught by Paladugu. The motivation to do so would have been to have a UE, or method for a UE to, transmit to a base station network coded PDUs based on a sequence number space for assigning sequence numbers to network coded PDUs that are based on a priority data type that is different than a sequence number space for network coded PDUs that are based on a non-priority data type, indicating whether each network coded PDU is a priority PDU or non-priority PDU (i.e. a set SN) and an associated sequence number from the respective sequence number space (i.e. an order SN) in a header and sub-header of each network coded PDU and sending the network coded PDUs to a receiver so that a receiver can reader the header of a PDU to distinguish priority PDUs from non-priority PDUs and determine when a PDU has an out of order sequence number that fall in the sequence number space for priority PDUs and is to be treated with a higher priority than if the PDU had a sequence number falling in the sequence number space for non-priority PDUs.
Zhao fails to disclose but Zhu further teaches assigning a set SN to the set of PDUs, wherein the set SN has a same value for each PDU of the set of PDUs and identifies an NC PDU set to which each PDU belongs for network decoding by a receiver ([0133] discloses assigning a block ID to a group of code block, wherein the group of code block may be one or more PDUs that have been network coded by a protocol layer or protocol entity, wherein the block ID is an identifier distinguishing each group of code block, and wherein each network coded PDU within a group of code block has the same block ID identifying the group of code block for which each network coded PDU belongs. [0172] discloses that the block ID is used for network decoding by a receiver).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a WTRU configured to, or a method for a WTRU comprising to: obtain a set of service data units (SDUs), the set comprising at least one SDU; and perform network coding (NC) encoding on the set of service data units to obtain a set of packet data units (PDUs), as disclosed Zhao, and assign a set SN to the set of PDUs, wherein the set SN has a same value for each PDU of the set of PDUs and identifies an NC PDU set to which each PDU belongs for network decoding by a receiver, as further taught by Zhu. The motivation to do so would have been to have a UE, or a method for a UE to, transmit to a base station network coded PDUs based on network coding of SDUs, divide the to-be-sent network coded PDUs into a plurality of groups of code block wherein each group of code block contains one or more network coded PDUs corresponding to a generation of the network code used in network coding the SDUs, and assign a block ID to each group of code block distinguishing the network coded PDUs in each group of code block to be from the same network coding generation, so that the base station can identify network coding PDUs from the same generation by identifying network coded PDUs having the same block ID, in order for the base station to perform decoding of the network coded PDUs to recover the SDUs.
Regarding Claim 9, Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu disclose the method of claim 1.
Zhao fails to disclose further comprising: determining, using feedback from the receiver, whether at least one retransmission condition is fulfilled; and in case the at least one retransmission condition is fulfilled, retransmitting at least one PDU of the set of PDUs, wherein the at least one retransmission condition comprises one of a missing PDU in a received set of PDUs, unsuccessful decoding of a PDU in the received set of PDUs, unsuccessful decoding of data unit of the received set of PDUs, and a missing SDU in a corresponding received set of service data units.
However, Paladugu further teaches further comprising: determining, using feedback from the receiver, whether at least one retransmission condition is fulfilled (Fig 2 & [0115] disclose that a UE may fail to receive or decode a message, and using feedback, a Relay Device may determine a retransmission condition has been fulfilled.);
and in case the at least one retransmission condition is fulfilled, retransmitting at least one PDU of the set of PDUs (Fig 2 & [0115] disclose that a Relay Device may determine a retransmission condition has been fulfilled and retransmit at least one NC message (e.g. a NC RLC PDU) of a set of messages (e.g. a set of NC RLC PDUs).),
wherein the at least one retransmission condition comprises one of a missing PDU in the received set of PDUs, unsuccessful decoding of a PDU in a received set of PDUs, unsuccessful decoding of data unit of the received set of PDUs, and a missing SDU in a corresponding received set of service data units (Fig 2 & [0115] disclose that a retransmission condition comprises a UE failing to receive (i.e. missing PDU) or decode a NC message (unsuccessful decoding of a PDU).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 1, as disclosed by Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu, further comprising: determining, using feedback from the receiver, whether at least one retransmission condition is fulfilled; and in case the at least one retransmission condition is fulfilled, retransmitting at least one PDU of the set of PDUs, wherein the at least one retransmission condition comprises one of a missing PDU in a received set of PDUs, unsuccessful decoding of a PDU in the received set of PDUs, unsuccessful decoding of data unit of the received set of PDUs, and a missing SDU in a corresponding received set of service data units, as further taught by Paladugu. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method for using feedback from a receiver to determine and retransmit a missed or unsuccessfully decoded NC PDU so that the receiver can attempt again to receive and decode the missed or unsuccessfully decoded NC PDU in order to have a sufficient number of successfully decoded NC PDUs to perform network decoding across the NC PDUs of a generation.
Regarding Claim 19, Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu disclose the WTRU of claim 11.
Zhao fails to disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine, using feedback from the receiver, whether at least one retransmission condition is fulfilled; and in case the at least one retransmission condition is fulfilled, retransmit at least one PDU of the set of PDUs, wherein the at least one retransmission condition comprises one of a missing PDU in a received set of PDUs, unsuccessful decoding of a PDU in the received set of PDUs, unsuccessful decoding of data unit of the received set of PDUs, and a missing SDU in a corresponding received set of service data units.
However, Paladugu further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine, using feedback from the receiver, whether at least one retransmission condition is fulfilled (Fig 2 & [0115] disclose that a UE may fail to receive or decode a message, and using feedback, a Relay Device may determine a retransmission condition has been fulfilled.);
and in case the at least one retransmission condition is fulfilled, retransmit at least one PDU of the set of PDUs (Fig 2 & [0115] disclose that a Relay Device may determine a retransmission condition has been fulfilled and retransmit at least one NC message (e.g. a NC RLC PDU) of a set of messages (e.g. a set of NC RLC PDUs).),
wherein the at least one retransmission condition comprises one of a missing PDU in the received set of PDUs, unsuccessful decoding of a PDU in a received set of PDUs, unsuccessful decoding of data unit of the received set of PDUs, and a missing SDU in a corresponding received set of service data units (Fig 2 & [0115] disclose that a retransmission condition comprises a UE failing to receive (i.e. missing PDU) or decode a NC message (unsuccessful decoding of a PDU).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the WTRU of claim 11, as disclosed by Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine, using feedback from the receiver, whether at least one retransmission condition is fulfilled; and in case the at least one retransmission condition is fulfilled, retransmit at least one PDU of the set of PDUs, wherein the at least one retransmission condition comprises one of a missing PDU in a received set of PDUs, unsuccessful decoding of a PDU in the received set of PDUs, unsuccessful decoding of data unit of the received set of PDUs, and a missing SDU in a corresponding received set of service data units, as further taught by Paladugu. The motivation to do so would have been to have a WTRU that can use feedback from a receiver to determine and retransmit a missed or unsuccessfully decoded NC PDU so that the receiver can attempt again to receive and decode the missed or unsuccessfully decoded NC PDU in order to have a sufficient number of successfully decoded NC PDUs to perform network decoding across the NC PDUs of a generation.
Claims 2, 3 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 2025/0158743)(herein after “Zhao”) in view of Meylan et al. (US 2018/0176816)(herein after “Meylan”) and Paladugu et al. (US 2022/0052788)(herein after “Paladugu”) and Zhu et al. (US 2022/0416939)(herein after “Zhu”), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wang et al. (WO 2020211549)(herein after “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu disclose the method of claim 1.
Zhao discloses received NC configuration information ([0121] discloses acquiring (i.e. receiving) network coding parameters sent through header information a source packet.).
Zhao fails to disclose further comprising: selecting, for each PDU, the order SN from a range specific to a type of the PDU, wherein each range being associated with a type of PDU.
However, Meylan teaches further comprising: selecting, for each PDU, the order SN from a range specific to a type of the PDU, wherein each range being associated with a type of PDU (Fig 4 & [0072]-[0073] discloses a packet prioritizing component 346 that can utilize (i.e. select), for one or more PDUs, a sequence number from a range of sequence numbers in a sequence number space allocated specifically for priority PDUs, and utilize, for one or more PDUs, a sequence number from a different range of sequence numbers in a sequence number space allocated specifically for non-priority PDUs, each range being associated with a type of PDU (i.e. priority PDU or non-priority PDU).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a method of claim 1, as disclosed Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu, further comprising: selecting, for each PDU, the order SN from a range specific to a type of the PDU, wherein each range being associated with a type of PDU, as taught by Meylan. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method for a UE to transmit, to a base station, network coded priority PDUs based on a sequence number selected from a range of sequence numbers allocated for network coded PDUs that are based on a priority data type and network coded non-priority PDUs based on a sequence number selected from a different range of sequence numbers allocated for network coded PDUs that are based on a non-priority data type, so that when receiving the network coded PDUs a receiver can distinguish priority PDUs from non-priority PDUs and determine that PDUs with out of order sequence numbers that fall in the range of sequence number for priority PDUs are to be treated with a higher priority than with sequence numbers falling in the range of sequence number for non-priority PDUs.
Zhao fails to disclose wherein the received NC configuration information indicates a plurality of ranges of order SN.
However, Wang further teaches wherein the received NC configuration information indicates a plurality of ranges of order SN (Fig 3 & [0064]-[0065] disclose determining of two sequence number sets, a first sequence number set containing a range of sequence numbers associated with PDUs of higher priority and a second sequence number set containing a range of sequence numbers associated with PDUs of lower priority. [0107] discloses the header of a first PDU includes first indication information that indicates the sequence number set (i.e. the range of order SN) for which a first sequence number belongs and a second PDU includes second indication information that indicates the sequence number set for which a second sequence number belongs. In the case where the first indication information and the second indication information are for different sequence number sets, the receiving device would have received configuration information indicating two different sequence number sets for two different ranges of sequence numbers.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 1 wherein NC configuration information is received, as disclosed Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu, wherein the received NC configuration information indicates a plurality of ranges of order SN, as taught by Wang. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method for a UE to receive NC configuration information that indicates a range of sequence numbers allocated for network coded PDUs that are based on higher priority data and a different range of sequence numbers allocated for network coded PDUs that are based on a lower priority data, so that when receiving network coded PDUs with a particular sequence number a receiver can distinguish higher priority PDUs from lower priority PDUs in order to treat the higher priority PDUS with a higher priority than the lower priority PDUs.
Regarding Claim 3, Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu and Wang disclose the method of claim 2.
Zhao discloses wherein the configuration information is received from a base station (Fig 2. & [0058]-[0059] discloses that the transmitting end of the methods disclosed may be a base station and the receiving end of the methods disclosed may be a UE. Thus, the network coding parameters sent through header information of a source packet disclosed in [0121] may be received by a UE from a base station.).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu and Wang disclose the method of claim 2.
Zhao fails to disclose wherein the attaching further comprises including, in the sub-header of each PDU, information indicative of the type of the PDU.
However Meylan teaches wherein the attaching further comprises including, in the sub-header of each PDU, information indicative of the type of the PDU ([0072] discloses setting a priority type in a header of a PDU.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a method of claim 2, as disclosed Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu and Wang, wherein the attaching further comprises including, in the sub-header of each PDU, information indicative of the type of the PDU, as taught by Meylan. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method for NC encoding PDUs wherein the header of each PDU contains information on whether the PDU is a priority type packet on non-priority type packet so that the receiver that receives the PDU can know if this PDU should be treated with high priority.
Claims 12, 13 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 2025/0158743)(herein after “Zhao”) in view of Meylan et al. (US 2018/0176816)(herein after “Meylan”) and Paladugu et al. (US 2022/0052788)(herein after “Paladugu”) and Zhu et al. (US 2022/0416939)(herein after “Zhu”), as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Wang et al. (WO 2020211549)(herein after “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 12, Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu disclose the WTRU of claim 11.
Zhao discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive NC configuration information ([0121] discloses acquiring (i.e. receiving) network coding parameters sent through header information a source packet.).
Zhao fails to disclose further comprising: select, for each PDU, the order SN from a range specific to a type of the PDU, wherein each range being associated with a type of PDU.
However, Meylan teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: select, for each PDU, the order SN from a range specific to a type of the PDU, wherein each range being associated with a type of PDU (Fig 4 & [0072]-[0073] discloses a packet prioritizing component 346 that can utilize (i.e. select), for one or more PDUs, a sequence number from a range of sequence numbers in a sequence number space allocated specifically for priority PDUs, and utilize, for one or more PDUs, a sequence number from a different range of sequence numbers in a sequence number space allocated specifically for non-priority PDUs, each range being associated with a type of PDU (i.e. priority PDU or non-priority PDU).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the WTRU of claim 11, as disclosed Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu, further comprising: selecting, for each PDU, the order SN from a range specific to a type of the PDU, wherein each range being associated with a type of PDU, as taught by Meylan. The motivation to do so would have been to have a UE that can transmit, to a base station, network coded priority PDUs based on a sequence number selected from a range of sequence numbers allocated for network coded PDUs that are based on a priority data type and network coded non-priority PDUs based on a sequence number selected from a different range of sequence numbers allocated for network coded PDUs that are based on a non-priority data type, so that when receiving the network coded PDUs a receiver can distinguish priority PDUs from non-priority PDUs and determine that PDUs with out of order sequence numbers that fall in the range of sequence number for priority PDUs are to be treated with a higher priority than with sequence numbers falling in the range of sequence number for non-priority PDUs.
Zhao fails to disclose wherein the received NC configuration information indicates a plurality of ranges of order SN.
However, Wang further teaches wherein the received NC configuration information indicates a plurality of ranges of order SN (Fig 3 & [0064]-[0065] disclose determining of two sequence number sets, a first sequence number set containing a range of sequence numbers associated with PDUs of higher priority and a second sequence number set containing a range of sequence numbers associated with PDUs of lower priority. [0107] discloses the header of a first PDU includes first indication information that indicates the sequence number set (i.e. the range of order SN) for which a first sequence number belongs and a second PDU includes second indication information that indicates the sequence number set for which a second sequence number belongs. In the case where the first indication information and the second indication information are for different sequence number sets, the receiving device would have received configuration information indicating two different sequence number sets for two different ranges of sequence numbers.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the WTRU of claim 11 wherein NC configuration information is received, as disclosed Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu, wherein the received NC configuration information indicates a plurality of ranges of order SN, as taught by Wang. The motivation to do so would have been to have a UE that can receive NC configuration information that indicates a range of sequence numbers allocated for network coded PDUs that are based on higher priority data and a different range of sequence numbers allocated for network coded PDUs that are based on a lower priority data, so that when receiving network coded PDUs with a particular sequence number a receiver can distinguish higher priority PDUs from lower priority PDUs in order to treat the higher priority PDUS with a higher priority than the lower priority PDUs.
Regarding Claim 13, Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu and Wang disclose the WTRU of claim 12.
Zhao discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive the NC configuration information from a base station (Fig 2. & [0058]-[0059] discloses that the transmitting end of the methods disclosed may be a base station and the receiving end of the methods disclosed may be a UE. Thus, the network coding parameters sent through header information of a source packet disclosed in [0121] may be received by a UE from a base station.).
Regarding Claim 15, Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu and Wang disclose the WTRU of claim 12.
Zhao fails to disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to include, in the sub-header of each PDU, information indicative of the type of the PDU.
However Meylan teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to include, in the sub-header of each PDU, information indicative of the type of the PDU ([0072] discloses setting a priority type in a header of a PDU.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a WTRU of claim 12, as disclosed Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu and Wang, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to include, in the sub-header of each PDU, information indicative of the type of the PDU, as taught by Meylan. The motivation to do so would have been to have a WTRU that can NC encode PDUs wherein the header of each PDU contains information on whether the PDU is a priority type packet on non-priority type packet so that the receiver that receives the PDU can know if this PDU should be treated with high priority.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 2025/0158743)(herein after “Zhao”) in view of Meylan et al. (US 2018/0176816)(herein after “Meylan”) and Paladugu et al. (US 2022/0052788)(herein after “Paladugu”) and Zhu et al. (US 2022/0416939)(herein after “Zhu”) and Wang et al. (WO 2020211549)(herein after “Wang”), as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Jones et al. (Andrew L. Jones, Ioannis Chatzigeorgiou and Andrea Tassi, “Binary Systematic Network Coding for Progressive Packet Decoding”, ArXiv, Jan 14, 2015)(herein after “Jones”) and Berger et al. (Christian R. Berger, Shengli Zhou, Yonggang Wen, Peter Willett and Krishna Pattipati, “Optimizing Joint Erasure- and Error-Correction Coding for Wireless Packet Transmissions”, IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, Vol. 7, No. 11, November 2008)(herein after “Berger”).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu and Wang disclose the method of claim 2.
Zhao fails to disclose wherein types of PDU include one or more of systematic packets and non-systematic packets.
However, Jones further teaches wherein types of PDU include one or more of systematic packets and non-systematic packets (First page, Section II, first paragraph discloses a systematic NC encoder that generates K systematic packets (i.e. systematic packets) and N-K coded packets (i.e. non-system packets).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 2, as disclosed Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu and Wang, wherein the types of PDU include one or more of systematic packets and non-systematic packets, as further taught by Jones. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method for NC encoding PDUs using either systematic or non-systematic network coding to provide flexibility in trading off complexity in data recovery, performance in high SNR vs. low SNR and error propagation.
Zhao fails to disclose wherein types of PDU include one or more of error correction packets and erasure correction packets.
However, Berger further teaches wherein types of PDU include one or more of error correction packets and erasure correction packets (First page, Section I, right column, second paragraph discloses error-correction coding on a per packet basis (i.e. error correction packets) and erasure-correction coding across data packets (i.e. erasure correction packets).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 2, as disclosed Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu and Wang, wherein the types of PDU include one or more of error correction packets and erasure correction packets, as further taught by Berger. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method for NC encoding PDUs using either error correction or erasure correction network coding to provide flexibility in trading off fault tolerance, computational complexity, storage efficiency, overhead, error recovery and processing time.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 2025/0158743)(herein after “Zhao”) in view of Meylan et al. (US 2018/0176816)(herein after “Meylan”) and Paladugu et al. (US 2022/0052788)(herein after “Paladugu”) and Zhu et al. (US 2022/0416939)(herein after “Zhu”) and Wang et al. (WO 2020211549)(herein after “Wang”), as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Jones et al. (Andrew L. Jones, Ioannis Chatzigeorgiou and Andrea Tassi, “Binary Systematic Network Coding for Progressive Packet Decoding”, ArXiv, Jan 14, 2015)(herein after “Jones”) and Berger et al. (Christian R. Berger, Shengli Zhou, Yonggang Wen, Peter Willett and Krishna Pattipati, “Optimizing Joint Erasure- and Error-Correction Coding for Wireless Packet Transmissions”, IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, Vol. 7, No. 11, November 2008)(herein after “Berger”).
Regarding Claim 14, Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu and Wang disclose the WTRU of claim 12.
Zhao fails to disclose wherein types of PDU include one or more of systematic packets and non-systematic packets.
However, Jones further teaches wherein types of PDU include one or more of systematic packets and non-systematic packets (First page, Section II, first paragraph discloses a systematic NC encoder that generates K systematic packets (i.e. systematic packets) and N-K coded packets (i.e. non-system packets).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the WTRU of claim 12, as disclosed Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu and Wang, wherein the types of PDU include one or more of systematic packets and non-systematic packets, as further taught by Jones. The motivation to do so would have been to have a WTRU that can NC encode PDUs using either systematic or non-systematic network coding to provide flexibility in trading off complexity in data recovery, performance in high SNR vs. low SNR and error propagation.
Zhao fails to disclose wherein types of PDU include one or more of error correction packets and erasure correction packets.
However, Berger further teaches wherein types of PDU include one or more of error correction packets and erasure correction packets (First page, Section I, right column, second paragraph discloses error-correction coding on a per packet basis (i.e. error correction packets) and erasure-correction coding across data packets (i.e. erasure correction packets).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the WTRU of claim 12, as disclosed Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu and Wang, wherein the types of PDU include one or more of error correction packets and erasure correction packets, as further taught by Berger. The motivation to do so would have been to have a WTRU that can NC encode PDUs using either error correction or erasure correction network coding to provide flexibility in trading off fault tolerance, computational complexity, storage efficiency, overhead, error recovery and processing time.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 2025/0158743)(herein after “Zhao”) in view of Meylan et al. (US 2018/0176816)(herein after “Meylan”) and Paladugu et al. (US 2022/0052788)(herein after “Paladugu”) and Zhu et al. (US 2022/0416939)(herein after “Zhu”), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Turtinen et al. (US 10701588)(herein after “Turtinen”).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu disclose the method of claim 1.
Zhao fails to disclose wherein the set SN is based on a data unit SN associated with the set of service data units.
However, Turtinen further teaches wherein the set SN is based on a data unit SN associated with the set of service data units (Fig 5 & col 13, lines 43-50 disclose a plurality of ranges of SDU segments where the first range (i.e. that defines a first set SN) consists of SDU0, SDU1 and the first segment of SDU2, a second range (i.e. that defines a second set SN) consists of the second segment of SDU2, SDU3 and the first segment of SDU4, and a third range (i.e. that defines a third set SN) consists of the second segment of SDU4 and SDU5. The set SN is based on the SN of the first SDU included in the range of SDU segments and included in the PDU header. Thus, the set SN is based on an SDU SN associated with the set of SDUs.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 1, as disclosed by Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu, wherein the set SN is based on a data unit SN associated with the set of service data units, as further taught by Turtinen. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method that bases the set SN on the SN of the first SDU associated with set of SDUs defining the set SN so that each set SN is identified by a different SN so that a receiver receiving a packet and reading the Set SN knows which set SN the packet belongs to and can treat the priority of the packet appropriately.
Regarding Claim 7, Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu and Turtinen disclose the method of claim 6.
Zhao fails to disclose wherein the set SN is equal to a data unit SN from a service data unit in the set of service data units, a smallest data unit SN from a service data unit in the set of service data units, or a largest data unit SN from a service data unit in the set of service data units.
However Turtinen further teaches wherein the set SN is equal to a data unit SN from a service data unit in the set of service data units, a smallest data unit SN from a service data unit in the set of service data units, or a largest data unit SN from a service data unit in the set of service data units (Fig 5 & col 13, lines 43-50 disclose a plurality of ranges of SDU segments where the first range (i.e. that defines a first set SN) consists of SDU0, SDU1 and the first segment of SDU2, a second range (i.e. that defines a second set SN) consists of the second segment of SDU2, SDU3 and the first segment of SDU4, and a third range (i.e. that defines a third set SN) consists of the second segment of SDU4 and SDU5. The set SN is based on the smallest SN of the SDUs included in the range of SDU segments and included in the PDU header. Thus, the set SN is based on a smallest SDU SN associated with the set of SDUs.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 6, as disclosed by Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu and Turtinen, wherein the set SN is equal to a data unit SN from a service data unit in the set of service data units, a smallest data unit SN from a service data unit in the set of service data units, or a largest data unit SN from a service data unit in the set of service data units, as further taught by Turtinen. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method that bases the set SN on a smallest SN of the SDUs associated with set of SDUs defining the set SN so that each set SN is identified by a different SN so that a receiver receiving a packet and reading the set SN knows which set SN the packet belongs to and can treat the priority of the packet appropriately.
Regarding Claim 8, Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu disclose the method of claim 1.
Zhao discloses a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) (Fig 23 & [0037] disclose that the source data packets may be PDCP SDUs.).
Zhao fails to disclose wherein the set SN is a SN of at least one service data unit in the set of service data units.
However, Turtinen further teaches wherein the set SN is a SN of at least one service data unit in the set of service data units (Fig 5 & col 13, lines 43-50 disclose a plurality of ranges of SDU segments where the first range (i.e. that defines a first set SN) consists of SDU0, SDU1 and the first segment of SDU2, a second range (i.e. that defines a second set SN) consists of the second segment of SDU2, SDU3 and the first segment of SDU4, and a third range (i.e. that defines a third set SN) consists of the second segment of SDU4 and SDU5. The set SN is based on the SN of the first SDU included in the range of SDU segments and included in the PDU header. Thus, the set SN is an SDU SN of at least one of the SDUs in the set of SDUs.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 1, as disclosed by Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu, wherein the set SN is a SN of at least one service data unit in the set of service data units, as further taught by Turtinen. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method that bases the set SN on the SN of the first SDU associated with set of SDUs defining the set SN so that each set SN is identified by a different SN so that a receiver receiving a packet and reading the Set SN knows which set SN the packet belongs to and can treat the priority of the packet appropriately.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 2025/0158743)(herein after “Zhao”) in view of Meylan et al. (US 2018/0176816)(herein after “Meylan”) and Paladugu et al. (US 2022/0052788)(herein after “Paladugu”) and Zhu et al. (US 2022/0416939)(herein after “Zhu”), as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Turtinen et al. (US 10701588)(herein after “Turtinen”).
Regarding Claim 16, Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu disclose the WTRU of claim 11.
Zhao fails to disclose wherein the set SN is based on a data unit SN associated with the set of service data units.
However, Turtinen further teaches wherein the set SN is based on a data unit SN associated with the set of service data units (Fig 5 & col 13, lines 43-50 disclose a plurality of ranges of SDU segments where the first range (i.e. that defines a first set SN) consists of SDU0, SDU1 and the first segment of SDU2, a second range (i.e. that defines a second set SN) consists of the second segment of SDU2, SDU3 and the first segment of SDU4, and a third range (i.e. that defines a third set SN) consists of the second segment of SDU4 and SDU5. The set SN is based on the SN of the first SDU included in the range of SDU segments and included in the PDU header. Thus, the set SN is based on an SDU SN associated with the set of SDUs.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the WTRU of claim 11, as disclosed by Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu, wherein the set SN is based on a data unit SN associated with the set of service data units, as further taught by Turtinen. The motivation to do so would have been to have a WTRU that can base the set SN on the SN of the first SDU associated with set of SDUs defining the set SN so that each set SN is identified by a different SN so that a receiver receiving a packet and reading the Set SN knows which set SN the packet belongs to and can treat the priority of the packet appropriately.
Regarding Claim 17, Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu and Turtinen disclose the WTRU of claim 16.
Zhao fails to disclose wherein the set SN is equal to a service data unit SN from a service data unit in the set of service data units, a smallest data unit SN from a service data unit in the set of data units, or a largest data unit SN from a service data unit in the set of service data units.
However Turtinen further teaches wherein the set SN is equal to a service data unit SN from a service data unit in the set of service data units, a smallest data unit SN from a service data unit in the set of data units, or a largest data unit SN from a service data unit in the set of service data units (Fig 5 & col 13, lines 43-50 disclose a plurality of ranges of SDU segments where the first range (i.e. that defines a first set SN) consists of SDU0, SDU1 and the first segment of SDU2, a second range (i.e. that defines a second set SN) consists of the second segment of SDU2, SDU3 and the first segment of SDU4, and a third range (i.e. that defines a third set SN) consists of the second segment of SDU4 and SDU5. The set SN is based on the smallest SN of the SDUs included in the range of SDU segments and included in the PDU header. Thus, the set SN is based on a smallest SDU SN associated with the set of SDUs.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the WTRU of claim 16, as disclosed by Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu and Turtinen, wherein the set SN is equal to a service data unit SN from a service data unit in the set of service data units, a smallest data unit SN from a service data unit in the set of data units, or a largest data unit SN from a service data unit in the set of service data units, as further taught by Turtinen. The motivation to do so would have been to have a WTRU that can base the set SN on a smallest SN of the SDUs associated with set of SDUs defining the set SN so that each set SN is identified by a different SN so that a receiver receiving a packet and reading the set SN knows which set SN the packet belongs to and can treat the priority of the packet appropriately.
Regarding Claim 18, Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu disclose the method of claim 11.
Zhao discloses a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) (Fig 23 & [0037] disclose that the source data packets may be PDCP SDUs.).
Zhao fails to disclose wherein the set SN is a SN of at least one service data unit in the set of service data units.
However, Turtinen further teaches wherein the set SN is a SN of at least one service data unit in the set of service data units (Fig 5 & col 13, lines 43-50 disclose a plurality of ranges of SDU segments where the first range (i.e. that defines a first set SN) consists of SDU0, SDU1 and the first segment of SDU2, a second range (i.e. that defines a second set SN) consists of the second segment of SDU2, SDU3 and the first segment of SDU4, and a third range (i.e. that defines a third set SN) consists of the second segment of SDU4 and SDU5. The set SN is based on the SN of the first SDU included in the range of SDU segments and included in the PDU header. Thus, the set SN is an SDU SN of at least one of the SDUs in the set of SDUs.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the WTRU of claim 11, as disclosed by Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu, wherein the set SN is a SN of at least one service data unit in the set of service data units, as further taught by Turtinen. The motivation to do so would have been to have a WTRU that can base the set SN on the SN of the first SDU associated with set of SDUs defining the set SN so that each set SN is identified by a different SN so that a receiver receiving a packet and reading the Set SN knows which set SN the packet belongs to and can treat the priority of the packet appropriately.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 2025/0158743)(herein after “Zhao”) in view of Meylan et al. (US 2018/0176816)(herein after “Meylan”) and Paladugu et al. (US 2022/0052788)(herein after “Paladugu”) and Zhu et al. (US 2022/0416939)(herein after “Zhu”), as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2011/0041041)(herein after “Kim”).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu disclose the method of claim 9.
Zhao discloses further comprising: performing further NC encoding on the set of service data units to obtain a further set of packet data units (PDUs) ([0408]-[0413] discloses performing a second network coding using a second network coding parameter to obtain a second encoded data packet (i.e. a further set of PDUs) that can be decoded to obtain a source data packet (i.e. SDU).); and
sending the further set of PDUs to the receiver ([0412] discloses sending the second encoded data to a receiving end.).
Zhao fails to disclose further comprising: wherein the performing of the further NC encoding is in case the at least one retransmission condition is not fulfilled, wherein the further NC encoding uses at least one of different coding coefficients, different coefficient vectors and a different coefficient matrix compared to the NC encoding used to obtain the set of PDUs.
However, Kim further teaches further comprising: wherein the performing of the further NC encoding is in case the at least one retransmission condition is not fulfilled, wherein the further NC encoding uses at least one of different coding coefficients, different coefficient vectors and a different coefficient matrix compared to the NC encoding used to obtain the set of PDUs (Fig 1 & [0043] discloses a scenario where 5 NC symbols (A1, A2, A3, A4 & A5) are sent from a sender to a receiver, each NC symbol based on a different set of NC coefficients, two of the NC symbols are dirty, and upon determining that only a limited number of symbols are dirty (i.e. retransmission condition not fulfilled), the sender sends two new NC symbols (A6 & A7) based on different NC coefficients. The above scenario teaches the recited limitation as applied to a symbol leave that could be applied at a packet level for network coding of SDUs to create NC PDUs.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 9 and further comprising: performing further NC encoding on the set of service data units to obtain a further set of packet data units (PDUs); and sending the further set of PDUs to the receiver, as disclosed by Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu, and further comprising: wherein the performing of the further NC encoding is in case the at least one retransmission condition is not fulfilled, performing further NC encoding on the set of service data units to obtain a further set of packet data units (PDUs) wherein the further NC encoding uses at least one of different coding coefficients, different coefficient vectors and a different coefficient matrix compared to the NC encoding used to obtain the set of PDUs, as further taught by Kim. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method where a receiver can determine a low number of NC PDUs have been received in error and instead having the sender retransmit the NC PDUs that were unsuccessfully decoded, the sender sends new and different NC PDUs based on different NC coefficients that can be used to perform NC decoding across the NC PDUs.).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 2025/0158743)(herein after “Zhao”) in view of Meylan et al. (US 2018/0176816)(herein after “Meylan”) and Paladugu et al. (US 2022/0052788)(herein after “Paladugu”) and Zhu et al. (US 2022/0416939)(herein after “Zhu”), as applied to claim 19, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2011/0041041)(herein after “Kim”).
Regarding Claim 20, Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu disclose the method of claim 19.
Zhao discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: perform further NC encoding on the set of service data units to obtain a further set of packet data units (PDUs) ([0408]-[0413] discloses performing a second network coding using a second network coding parameter to obtain a second encoded data packet (i.e. a further set of PDUs) that can be decoded to obtain a source data packet (i.e. SDU).); and
send the further set of PDUs to the receiver ([0412] discloses sending the second encoded data to a receiving end.).
Zhao fails to disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: wherein the performing of the further NC encoding is in case the at least one retransmission condition is not fulfilled, wherein the further NC encoding uses at least one of different coding coefficients, different coefficient vectors and a different coefficient matrix compared to the NC encoding used to obtain the set of PDUs.
However, Kim further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: wherein the performing of the further NC encoding is in case the at least one retransmission condition is not fulfilled, wherein the further NC encoding uses at least one of different coding coefficients, different coefficient vectors and a different coefficient matrix compared to the NC encoding used to obtain the set of PDUs (Fig 1 & [0043] discloses a scenario where 5 NC symbols (A1, A2, A3, A4 & A5) are sent from a sender to a receiver, each NC symbol based on a different set of NC coefficients, two of the NC symbols are dirty, and upon determining that only a limited number of symbols are dirty (i.e. retransmission condition not fulfilled), the sender sends two new NC symbols (A6 & A7) based on different NC coefficients. The above scenario teaches the recited limitation as applied to a symbol leave that could be applied at a packet level for network coding of SDUs to create NC PDUs.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the WTRU of claim 19, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: perform further NC encoding on the set of service data units to obtain a further set of packet data units (PDUs); and send the further set of PDUs to the receiver, as disclosed by Zhao in view of Meylan and Paladugu and Zhu, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: wherein the performing of the further NC encoding is in case the at least one retransmission condition is not fulfilled, perform further NC encoding on the set of service data units to obtain a further set of packet data units (PDUs) wherein the further NC encoding uses at least one of different coding coefficients, different coefficient vectors and a different coefficient matrix compared to the NC encoding used to obtain the set of PDUs, as further taught by Kim. The motivation to do so would have been to have a WTRU with a receiver that can determine a low number of NC PDUs have been received in error and instead having the sender retransmit the NC PDUs that were unsuccessfully decoded, the sender sends new and different NC PDUs based on different NC coefficients that can be used to perform NC decoding across the NC PDUs.).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Liu et al. (WO 2023/005885) discloses a Data Forwarding Method and Apparatus in Switching Scenario.
Tan et al. (US 2024/0235762) discloses a Data Transmission Method and Apparatus, and Readable Storage Medium.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES P SEYMOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at 571-270-3125. 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.
/JAMES P SEYMOUR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights