DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on 28 June 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSes) submitted on 8 January 2026 and 24 February 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 14, Line 2 — "RDMA" should be spelled out; and
Regarding Claim 20, Line 2 — “RDMA” should be spelled out.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “high probability loss pattern memory table” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high probability” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As currently written, claim 1 requires comparing an error-detecting code representation with a plurality of entries of a high probability loss pattern memory table. The term "high probability" appears to limit the type of table of whose entries are to be compared with the claimed error-detecting code representation. However, the original disclosure does not appear to disclose how a "high probability loss pattern memory table" differs from a table whose entries indicate a loss pattern of some probability, and the term "high probability loss pattern memory table" does not appear to be well-known term used in the art. Whether a (probability) loss pattern memory table is a high probability loss pattern memory table does not appear to be defined in the original disclosure. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite as it is currently written.
Regarding Claims 2-7, by virtue of ultimately depending on claim 1, claims 2-7 at least inherit the deficiencies of claim 1, because they do not appear to define the relative term of degree at issue. Therefore, claims 2-7 are indefinite for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, the term “high probability loss pattern memory table” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high probability” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As currently written, claim .
Regarding Claims 15-20, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 15-20 are substantially similar or identical or include substantially similar issues to those of claims 1-7, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claim 11, by depending on claim 10, claim 11 requires a loss packet pattern to include set bits indicating received packets and zeroes indicating missing packets in a sequence of packets — for example, a loss packet pattern represented as [1101] indicates packets 0, 1, and 3 as received and packet 2 as missing. Claim 11 attempts to further require associating each zero (0) in the packet loss pattern as a missing packet from the plurality of packets. However, by requiring the packet loss pattern to represent missing packets with zeroes in the packet loss pattern, as required by claim 10, each zero in the packet loss pattern of claim 10 necessarily requires the packet loss pattern to include an association of each zero in the packet loss pattern with a missing packet, because the zeroes of the packet loss pattern must indicate missing packets with zeroes, as required by claim 10. Therefore, claim 11 does not appear to further limit the scope of claim 10, upon which claim 11 depends. If claim 11 is amended to depend on claim 8 instead of claim 10, then claim 11 would be objected to for being a duplicate in scope of claim 10.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10, and 12-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the ordered combination of all of the features of at least independent claim 8. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to disclose decoding a patent loss pattern based on packet quantity and retransmitting detected missing packets in ordered combination with all the other features of at least any one of the independent claims.
Luby et al. (US 2023/0060948, hereinafter Luby) was found to be the closest prior art to the claimed invention. Luby, at Figs. 4-6, 11-15, and associated description, discloses packet recovery processes including consideration of a packet’s sequence number, largest global sequence number, and total number of packets received at a receiver. However, Luby does not appear to teach or suggest decoding a packet loss pattern as required in claim 8 in combination with all the other feature of claim 8.
Further search and consideration did not result in other prior art being found that discloses the subject matter at issue alone or in reasonable combination with Luby or any other prior art of record or listed below as pertinent but no relied upon.
Thus, at least independent claim 8 is allowed over the prior art of record. Dependent claims 10 and 12-13 are likewise allowed for at least the same reasons, because they depend on claim 8. Therefore, claims 8, 10, and 12-13 are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 14 is objected to for the informalities noted above, but would be allowable if rewritten to cure those informalities, because claim 14 depends on an allowed claims and introduces no rejectable matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Luby et al. (US 2023/0060948) is pertinent for the reasons provided above;
Dent (US 2008/0259891, previously made of record), at Figs. 2-5 and associated description, discloses setting bits to 1 for successfully transmitted packet and 0 for unsuccessfully transmitted packets, and associate a sequence of these packets transmission indicators with a terminal identifier in a cyclic redundancy check (CRC);
Gopalan et al. (US 2022/0294557, previously made of record), at Fig. 15 and associated description, discloses receiving a packet including an error detection code (EDC), from which the packet is determined to be corrupted, and modify the packet’s payload and recalculate the EDC until the packet is determined to no longer be corrupt;
Caulfield et al. (US 2021/0044679), at Figs. 6-7 and associated description, discloses generating an providing an EDC in a packet to be transmitted according to an accompanying bit mask, and a receiver receiving the packet and bitmask, generating an EDC from the received packet and determining whether to receive or discard the packet according to a comparison between the generated EDC and received EDC;
Varadarajan et al. (US 2020/0028625), at Fig. 3 and associated description, discloses a method of preemptively providing duplicate packets in a packet sequence according to a packet loss value;
Ichiki (US 2009/0016228), at Fig. 5 and associated description, discloses a method of receiving a stream of media packets, wherein lost packets are determined by sequence number and are retrieved until no packets are missing and a video signal may be generated;
Qiu et al. (US 2008/0225735), at Figs. 5-6 and associated description, discloses transceiving of packets in which lost packets are recovered;
Swaminathan (US 12,549,462), at Figs. 6-7 and 9 and associated description, discloses a receiver determining a burst loss pattern and a random loss regime, and the receiver determining reception of a retransmitted packet based on sequence number;
El-Hennawey et al. (US 2008/0212567), at Figs. 12-13, ¶¶ 164-165, 178 and other associated description, discloses determining a packet loss profile and packet loss pattern (i.e., burstiness) for a voice call, wherein modeling techniques may be used, such as illustrated with Table 1, to determine lost packets as voiced or unvoiced; and
Oran et al. (US 2008/0256409), at Figs. 4-9 and associated description, discloses various methods of packet error correction, which may be based on the type or extent of error to be corrected (e.g., low density or high density), wherein the repair may be achieved through unicast, multicast, or broadcast transmission.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R CAIRNS whose telephone number is (571)270-0487. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM ET M-F.
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, MARCUS SMITH can be reached at (571) 270-1096. 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.
/Thomas R Cairns/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights