DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment and Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed November 24, 2025 (“Amendment”). The instant application is a reissue application of U.S. Pat 8,179,812 B2, issued May 15, 2012 from U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 12/236,001 filed September 23, 2008, dependent on U.S. Provisional Pat. App. Ser. No. 60/976,893, filed October 2, 2007 (“the provisional ‘893 Application”).
Claims 1-25 were initially pending in the application. By way of amendments, claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11-14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24-26, 30, 31, 35-42, 44, 45, 47-53, 55, 56, and 58-74 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1, 4, 11, 14, 21, 26, 31, 36, 39, 47, 50, 73, and 74 are independent claims. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11-14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24-26, 30, 31, 35-42, 44, 45, 47-53, 55, 56, and 58-74 stand rejected below.
It is noted that the Amendment does not change any of the claims1 and thus the previous grounds of rejection in the Office action mailed October 25, 2024 are unchanged below. As claims of an application for which a RCE has been filed may be finally rejected in the action immediately subsequent to the filing of the RCE (with a submission and fee under 37 CFR 1.114 ) in the case where all the claims in the application after the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 are identical to the claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission and would have been properly finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to the filing of the RCE under 37 CFR 1.114, this action is Final.
Reissue
Because the instant application does not appear to contain a claim having an effective date on or after March 16, 2013, the America Invents Act First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions do not apply. Instead, the pre-AIA “First to Invent” provisions will govern this proceeding. See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note). In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 8,179,812 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
Priority
The instant Patent includes a claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to Provisional Application 60/976,893, filed October 2, 2007. However, it is noted that patent claims 4, 7, 11-14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 25, 26, 30, 31, 35, 39, 41, 42, 47-53, 55, 56, 58-72, and 74 include limitations not supported by the Provisional application.
Under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), the written description and drawing(s) (if any) of the provisional application must adequately support and enable the subject matter claimed in the nonprovisional application that claims the benefit of the provisional application. In New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294, 63 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the court held that for a nonprovisonal application to be afforded the priority date of the provisional application, “the specification of the provisional must ‘contain a written description of the invention and the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms,’ 35 U.S.C. § 112¶1, to enable an ordinarily skilled artisan to practice the invention claimed in the nonprovisional application.”
MPEP 201.11(I)(A).
Amended dependent claims 7, 17, 22, 41, 42, 52, and 53 require receiving a retransmit SN in a re-segmented data packet from a sending unit, i.e. retransmission, specifically as to a segment. The provisional ‘893 Application fails to disclose receiving at least one retransmit data packet from a sending unit, or the makeup of such a retransmit data packet such as the inclusion of a data portion.
Further, the provisional ‘893 Application does not disclose a storage, processor or transceiver/receiver/transmitter element (as to claims 11, 14, 21, 26, 31, 47, 50, 58, and 74) nor any means or step of generating the disclosed status packet (claims 1,4, 11, 14, 21, 31, 47, 50, 58, 73, and 74), or transmitting such to a sender, nor a means or step of extracting packet identifiers (claims 4, 14, 39, and 50), nor any timer set for determining a packet loss (claims 4, 14, 39, and 50).
Lastly, dependent claims 61-72 recite wait times between 10 and 100ms which are not disclosed in the provisional ‘893 Application.
As such, claims 4, 7, 11-14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 25, 26, 30, 31, 35, 39, 41, 42, 47-53, 55, 56, 58-72, and 74 of the instant Patent in this Reissue Application will be considered to have a filing date of the instant Patent Application, namely September 23, 2008, and “intervening art” references will be allowed to be applied to such claims. See MPEP 201.11.
Reissue Oath/Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration (Reissue Application Declaration by the Inventor, PTO/AIA /05) filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414.01) because it fails to identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application.
The given error statement (“Claims 11, 14 and 18 contain unnecessary limitations”) fails to indicate an error upon which a reissue is based as one which causes the patent to be “deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent.” The declaration further fails to identify at least one broadened claim; it is noted that claim 18 is canceled and issued claim 14 is a dependent claim, and enlarging the scope of a dependent claim is not broadening. See MPEP § 1414 II. A general statement, e.g., that all claims are broadened, is not sufficient to satisfy this requirement. In identifying the error, it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.
Further, all claims stand rejected below as attempting recapture of surrendered subject matter. Recapture of surrendered subject matter is not a correctable error under § 251, thus any error identified by Patent Owner must not comport with such recapture.
Applicant is required to submit a corrected Reissue Application Declaration by the Inventor PTO/AIA /05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11-14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24-26, 30, 31, 35-42, 44, 45, 47-53, 55, 56, and 58-74 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue oath/declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The reasons for the defect are noted above.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11-14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24-26, 30, 31, 35-45, 47-53, 55, 56, and 58-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A broadening aspect is present in the reissue which was not present in the application for patent. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
It is noted that the following is the three step test for determining recapture in reissue applications (see: MPEP 1412.02 II.):
“(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.”
Step 1: MPEP 1412.02 II. A. In the instant case and by way of the recent amendment, Applicant seeks to broaden or present broadened independent claims 1, 4, 11, 14, 21, 26, 31, 36, 39, 47, 50, 58, 73, and 74 which are broader than the original independent claims, at least by deleting/omitting the patent claim language requiring reception of a retransmit packet or that such includes at least a segment of the missing packet data payload, as well as the control packet comprising a header including a next-packet-to-be-received identifier. Thus claims 1, 4, 11, 14, 21, 26, 31, 36, 39, 47, 50, 58, 73, and 74 are broadened claims.
Step 2: MPEP 1412.02 II. B. The record of the prior 12/236,001 application prosecution indicates that in an Amendment filed September 9, 2011 in an attempt to overcome rejections over prior art references (Jr. and Phan), Patent Owner argued in his Remarks that the prior art failed to properly teach or suggest a step of reception of a retransmit packet, specifically portions of the missing data as claimed in the issued claims:
Conspicuous by its absence is any mention, teaching or suggestion by Jr to "transmittingat least one status control to said sending unit." Jr fails to teach or suggest a feedback mechanism to request re-transmission from the sending unit. In contrast, Jr presents a method to ignore a failed data packet transmission and continue with the next good cell received as the first cell of a next data packet; so cells; are added to packet assembly queue 516 until a first cell is received. Clearly, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that the present claims address a method of recovering from a data transmission loss by requesting re-transmission of the missing (failed) packet via the use of a missing packet identifier. Jr teaches nothing of the sort.
…
Again, conspicuous by its absence is any mention, teaching or suggestion by Jr to "receiving at least one retransmit data packet from said sending unit." As such, Jr fails to teach or suggest retransmission of the missing or corrupted portions of the previous packet. Further, Jr fails to teach or suggest a feedback mechanism utilizing a retransmit data packet to request re-transmission from the sending unit. In contrast, Jr presents a method to ignore a failed data packet transmission and continue with the next good cell received as the first cell of a next data packet; so cells; are added to packet assembly queue 516 until a first cell is received. Clearly, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that the present claims address a method of recovering from a data transmission loss by requesting re-transmission of the missing(failed) packet via the use of a missing packet identifier.
Remarks at 11-13 (emphasis in original).
The record further shows that in said same Argument Patent Owner asserted that the prior art failed to properly teach or suggest the control packet comprising a header, as well as the retransmit packet including at least a segment of the missing packet data payload:
Therefore, the Examiner has failed to show that any combination of Jr and Phan teachesor suggests "transmitting at least one status control packet to said sending unit, said control packet comprising a header including a next packet identifier" OR "receiving at least one retransmit data packet from said sending unit, said retransmit data packet comprising at least a segment of said data payload in said missing data packet associated with said missing packet identifier" as required by Claim 1.
…
Therefore, the Examiner has failed to show that any combination of Jr and Phan teachesor suggests "configuring at least one status control packet for transmission to said sending unit, said control packet comprising a header" OR "at least one status payload portion including at least one missing packet identifier" OR "transmit packet identifier for said missing data packet" OR "retransmit data packet comprises at least a segment of said data payload" as required by Claim 11.
…
Therefore, the Examiner has failed to show that any combination of Jr and Phan teachesor suggests "configuring at least a status control packet for transmission to said sending unit, said control packet comprising a header including a next packet identifier" OR "receiving ... at least one retransmit data packet from a sending unit ... said retransmit data packet comprises at least a segment of said data payload in said missing data packet associated with said missing packet identifier" as required by Claim 21.
Remarks at 13, 21, 30 (emphasis in original).
Lastly, said arguments specifically argued that the prior art applied to the claims did not teach a packet header comprising a next packet identifier for a next data packet anticipated to be received, as to the subject matter now removed from claims 1, 4, 11, 14, 21, 26, 31, 36, 39, 47, 50, 58, 73, and 74. Note the portion cited above, stating that Jr. and Phan do not disclose or suggest “said control packet comprising a header including a next packet identifier”.
Subject matter is previously surrendered during the prosecution of the original application by reliance on an argument/statement made by applicant that a limitation of the claim(s) defines over the art. In Hester, supra, the Federal Circuit held that the surrender that forms the basis for impermissible recapture “can occur through arguments alone”. Hester, 142 F.3d at 1482,46 USPQ2d at 1649. It is noted that a Patent Owner (reissue applicant) is bound by the argument that applicant relied upon to overcome an art rejection in the original application for the patent to be reissued, regardless of whether the Office adopted the argument in allowing the claims. Therefore, in the instant case the claimed limitations as to transmitting a retransmit packet, requiring the control packet comprise a header, and the retransmit packet including at least a segment of the missing packet data payload relates to surrendered subject matter and some of the broadening of the reissue claims, as noted above, are in the area of such surrendered subject matter.
Step 3: MPEP 1412.02 II. C. It is noted that the previous requirement of a retransmit packet has been entirely eliminated from the claims, including the requirement of a portion of the missing data. Rather now the claims disclose reception of a “re-segmented” packet which is not any retransmission of data, while claims 26 and 31 do not even recite this much. Thus there is recapture.
It is further noted that the previous requirement of a next-to-be-received packet identifier has been broadened. However, these claims are not further materially narrowed in other respects that relate to the surrendered subject matter to avoid recapture. MPEP 1412.02 III. B. 1. Here, it must be determined what portion of the amendment or argued limitation has been retained, and whether the retained portion materially narrows the original claims to avoid recapture. See Youman, 679 F.3d at 1346 n.4, 102 USPQ2d at 1870 n.4 ("'original claims' are defined as 'the claims before surrender'"). "[I]f the patentee modifies the added [or argued] limitation such that it is broader than the patented claim yet still materially narrows relative to the original claim, the recapture rule does not bar reissue." Id. at 1347, 102 USPQ2d at 1870. On the other hand, if the retained portion of the modified limitation is "well known in the prior art," impermissible recapture has not been avoided. See Mostafazadeh, 643 F.3d at 1361, 98 USPQ2d at 1644. It is to be noted that if the retained portion of the modified limitation is well known in the prior art, then impermissible recapture exists, even in a case where a further limitation which is not related to the surrendered subject matter (i.e., a limitation that does not materially narrow the claims) has been added to define the claims over the art. Id. Here, the Examiner notes that the remaining broadened limitation, as to sending an SN as to a received packet, are well-known in the art as demonstrated by the rejection below.
Therefore improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application is present in the instant reissue application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when pre-AIA §112 ¶6 is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under §112 ¶6:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with §112 ¶6. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under §112 ¶6, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with §112 ¶6. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under §112 ¶6, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under §112 ¶6, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a storage element for receiving” in claims 11, 14, 21, 47, 50, 58;
“processing element…configured for recognizing…and configuring…” in claims 11, 14, 21, 47, 58;
“a processing element configured to recognize a failure…and to generate a status protocol data unit…” in claim 31;
“a processing element configured for extracting…identifying…specifying…and configuring” in claim 50;
“a processing element configured to recognize a failure…and to generate…” in claim 74;
Here, the Examiner applies the three-pronged analysis disclosed in MPEP 2181(I) as follows:
As to prong A, in elements 1-5 above the term “element” is considered a substitute for “means” as it is a generic placeholder or “nonce” term having no specific structural meaning for performing the claimed function.
As to prong B, the generic placeholder term “element” is further modified by functional language, here “configured to”.
As to prong C, the generic placeholder term “element” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In this case, the structure as to the storage element 1 is identified in the disclosure in 4/39-44, as a processing element which “…can be implemented using any suitable data storage technology, such as semiconductor-based memory devices, magnetic memory devices and systems, optical memory devices and systems, fixed memory and removable memory.”
As to the processor elements 2-5 above, the structure is identified in the disclosure in 4/39-44, as a processing element which “…can be of any type suitable to the local technical environment, and can include one or more of general purpose computers, special purpose computers, microprocessors, digital signal processors (DSPs) and processors based on a multi-core processor architecture…”
However, for a computer-implemented §112 ¶6 claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.
For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) the Federal Circuit has stated that "a microprocessor can serve as structure for a computer-implemented function only where the claimed function is ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor itself." EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 622, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1714 (Fed. Cir. 2015), citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2011). "‘It is only in the rare circumstances where any general-purpose computer without any special programming can perform the function that an algorithm need not be disclosed.’" EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 621, 114 USPQ2 at 1714, quoting Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365, 102 USPQ2d 1122, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2012). "‘[S]pecial programming’ includes any functionality that is not ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor or general purpose computer." EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 623, 114 USPQ2d at 1715 (citations omitted). "Examples of such coextensive functions are ‘receiving’ data, ‘storing’ data, and ‘processing’ data—the only three functions on which the Katz court vacated the district court’s decision and remanded for the district court to determine whether disclosure of a microprocessor was sufficient." 785 F.3d at 622, 114 USPQ2d at 1714. Thus, "[a] microprocessor or general purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm." Id., 114 USPQ2d at 1714
Looking to the disclosure, the algorithm disclosed as to elements 2-5 above with respect to claims 11, 21, 31, and 47 is shown in 5/61-6/4 and 6/35-41 and FIG 3 elements 324 and 334 showing algorithmic steps of determining a failure to receive a packet and constructing a status control packet. The algorithm disclosed as to elements 2-5 above with respect to claims 14 and 50 is shown in 5/61-6/10 and 6/35-41 and FIG 3 elements 324, 326, and 334 showing algorithmic steps of determining a failure to receive a packet by way of setting a timer and constructing a status control packet.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under §112 ¶6, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under §112 ¶6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claims 26, 30, 31, 35, and 74 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by “Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) Radio Link Control (RLC) protocol specification (Release 8)”, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) TS 36.322 v2.0.0 (2007-11) (hereinafter “TS 36.322”), which references and incorporates “Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) and Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN); Overall description; Stage 2 (Release 8)”, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) TS 36.300 v8.2.0 (2007-09) (hereinafter “TS 36.300”), both of record. This is an intervening art rejection.
As to claim 26, TS 36.322 discloses:
A system comprising:
a transceiver configured to transmit a status protocol data unit, the status protocol data unit comprising:
TS 36.322 discloses a system including means to transmit PDUs from a transmitting element to a receiving element. TS 36.322 discloses that a UE or BS may do both. TS 36.322 at Sec. 4.2.1-4.2.1.1 pp. 7-9 and Sec. 4.2.1.3 p. 11. TS 36.322 discloses that the PDU may be a status PDU. Id. at Sec. 5.2.1 pp. 18-19, Sec. 6.1.2 p. 21 and at Sec. 6.2.1.6 p. 25. As the entities may transmit and receive data over a radio link, they inherently comprise a transceiver. Note that TS 36.322 references and incorporates TS 36.300 (TS 36.322 at Sec. 2), which discloses apparatus details as to the UE and eNB, showing processing which occurs therein as well as a transmitter and receiver. TS 36.300 at, inter alia, Sec. 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, and 5.2.7.3.
a data/control flag specifying whether the status protocol data unit contains data or control information;
TS 36.322 discloses that the status PDU may include a D/C flag specifying if it contains data or control information. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.2.9 p. 27.
a control field specifying a type of control protocol data unit;
TS 36.322 discloses that the status PDU contains a control field specifying a type of control PDU. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.2.13 p. 28.
an acknowledgement sequence number field indicative of a sequence number for a packet received by the system;
The status PDU is described in Sec. 6.2.1.6, and includes a header followed by an ACK_SN, which is a packet identifier indicative of a packet received from the sending unit. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.14.
a first extension field indicating whether a negative acknowledgment is present;
TS 36.322 discloses that the status PDU contains an extension field indicating that further information is included, which may include a NACK. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.2.15 p. 28.
a negative acknowledgment sequence number field identifying a packet not received;
TS 36.322 discloses that the status PDU may include a NACK identifying a packet not received by SN. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.2.16.
a negative acknowledgment beginning setoff value; and a negative acknowledgment ending setoff value.
TS 36.322 discloses that the status PDU may further include, with the NACK, a beginning and ending offset value indicating a portion of data not received. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.2.16 and 6.2.2.17 p 29.
Further as to claim 30,
TS 36.322 further discloses that the header and payload of the status control packet are set up such that the packet has a whole number of octets (bytes). TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.6 p. 25, noting “padding/reserve bits”.
As to claim 31, TS 36.322 discloses
A system comprising:
a transceiver configured to receive retransmit data packets from a sending unit and to receive protocol data units, each protocol data unit associated with a sequence number;
TS 36.322 discloses a system including means to transmit PDUs from a transmitting element to a receiving element. TS 36.322 discloses that a UE or BS may do both. TS 36.322 at Sec. 4.2.1-4.2.1.1 pp. 7-9 and Sec. 4.2.1.3 p. 11. TS 36.322 discloses that the PDU may be a status PDU. Id. at Sec. 5.2.1 pp. 18-19, Sec. 6.1.2 p. 21 and at Sec. 6.2.1.6 p. 25. As the entities may transmit and receive data over a radio link, they inherently comprise a transceiver. Note that TS 36.322 references and incorporates TS 36.300 (TS 36.322 at Sec. 2), which discloses apparatus details as to the UE and eNB, showing processing which occurs therein as well as a transmitter and receiver. TS 36.300 at, inter alia, Sec. 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, and 5.2.7.3.
The receiver may receive retransmit packets. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.2 pp. 12-13.
a processing element configured to recognize a failure to receive at least one other protocol data unit and to generate a status protocol data unit
TS 36.322 discloses determining a failure of reception of an RLC PDU. TS 36.322 at Sec. 5.2.3. The element performing such includes the logical programming shown in FIG 4.2.1.3.1-1 on p. 11, which would inherently be performed using a processing element. Note above how TS 36.300 discloses processing specifically.
comprising:
a one bit data/control flag specifying whether the status protocol data unit contains data or control information;
TS 36.322 discloses that the status PDU may include a 1-bit D/C flag specifying if it contains data or control information. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.2.9 p. 27.
a three bit control field specifying a type of control protocol data unit;
TS 36.322 discloses that the status PDU contains a 3-bit control field specifying a type of control PDU. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.2.13 p. 28.
a ten bit acknowledgement sequence number field equal to a sequence number of a packet received by the system; and
The status PDU is described in Sec. 6.2.1.6, and includes a header followed by an ACK_SN, which is a 10-bit packet identifier indicative of a packet received from the sending unit. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.14.
a one bit extension field having a value of 1 indicating a ten bit negative acknowledgement sequence number field follows;
TS 36.322 discloses that the status PDU contains a 1-bit extension field indicating that further information is included, which may include a NACK. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.2.15 pp. 28-29. A value of 1 indicates a NACK field follows. Id.
the ten bit negative acknowledgment sequence number field identifying a sequence number not received;
TS 36.322 discloses that the status PDU may include a 10-bit NACK identifying a packet not received by SN. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.6, FIG 6.2.1.6-1, and Sec. 6.2.2.16 p. 29.
a second one bit extension field indicating whether an additional NACK field is present;
TS 36.322 discloses that the first extension field indicates that, outside of the NACK, another extension field E1 follows the NACK identifying whether a further additional NACK field is present. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.2.15 pp. 28-29, noting that the first E1 field indicates if a NACK as well as another E1 follows.
a one bit additional extension field indicating a fifteen bit beginning setoff value field and a fifteen bit ending setoff value field follow;
TS 36.322 discloses another 1-bit additional extension field E2 indicating that two offset values follow, both of which are 15 bits in length. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.2.17 p. 29 and TABLE 6.2.2.17-1.
the fifteen bit beginning setoff value field; and
the fifteen bit ending setoff value field, and
TS 36.322 discloses the two offset value fields in Sec. 6.2.2.16-6.2.2.17 p. 29.
the transceiver configured to transmit the status protocol data unit to the sending unit.
TS 36.322 discloses transmitting a PDU which may be a status PDU. Id. at Sec. 5.2.1 pp. 18-19, Sec. 6.1.2 p. 21 and at Sec. 6.2.1.6 p. 25.
Further as to claim 35,
TS 36.322 further discloses that the header and payload of the status control packet are set up such that the packet has a whole number of octets (bytes). TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.6 p. 25, noting “padding/reserve bits”.
As to claim 74, TS 36.322 discloses
A digital communications system comprising: a receiver configured to receive RLC PDUs, re-segmented RLC PDUs, retransmitted RLC PDUs, and retransmitted re-segmented RLC PDUs;
TS 36.322 discloses a system and method including means to transmit PDUs from a transmitting element to a receiving element. TS 36.322 discloses that a UE or BS may do both. TS 36.322 at Sec. 4.2.1-4.2.1.1 pp. 7-9 and Sec. 4.2.1.3 p. 11. TS 36.322 discloses that the UE may receive RLC PDUs. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1. TS 36.322 discloses that RLC data PDUs may be either segmented or re-segmented, and may be transmitted or retransmitted. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.2, 4.4, 5.2.1, 6.1.1, and 6.2.2.10.
a processing element configured to recognize a failure to receive a re-segmented RLC PDU and to generate a status packet comprising a sequence number for the re-segmented RLC PDU, a beginning setoff value, and ending setoff value;
TS 36.322 discloses determining a failure of reception of an RLC PDU. TS 36.322 at Sec. 5.2.3. TS 36.322 discloses that RLC data PDUs may be either segmented or re-segmented. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.2, 4.4, 6.1.1, and 6.2.2.10. This can occur at the UE or eNB, which comprises a processor. Note that TS 36.322 references and incorporates TS 36.300 (TS 36.322 at Sec. 2), which discloses apparatus details as to the UE and eNB, showing processing which occurs therein. TS 36.300 at, inter alia, Sec. 5.1.2 and 5.2.2.
TS 36.322 further discloses generating a status PDU, and that the status PDU may include a NACK identifying a packet not received by SN. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.16. TS 36.322 discloses that the status PDU may further include, with the NACK, a beginning and ending offset value indicating a portion of data not received. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.2.16 and 6.2.2.17 p 29.
a transceiver element for transmitting the status packet.
TS 36.322 discloses a system including means to transmit PDUs including status PDUs from a transmitting element to a receiving element. As the entities may transmit and receive data over a radio link, they inherently comprise a transceiver. TS 36.300 discloses a transmitter and receiver. TS 36.300 at Sec. 5.2.1 and 5.2.7.3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 36-38, 40-42, 44, 45, and 73 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over “Radio Link Control (RLC) protocol specification (Release 7)”, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) TS 25.322 v7.3.0 (2007-06)2 (hereinafter “TS 25.322”) in view of “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) Radio Link Control (RLC) protocol specification (Release 8)”, )”, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) TS 36.322 v1.0.0 (2007-09) (hereinafter “TS 36.322 V1”).
As to claim 1, TS 25.322 discloses:
A method for delivery of one or more data blocks in a digital communications system, the method comprising:
TS 25.322 discloses a digital communication system and method for transmitting data. TS 25.322 at Sec. 4.2.
receiving a plurality of transmit data packets from a sending unit, each transmit data packet comprising a transmit sequence number (SN) specifying a sequence of transmission of transmit data packets;
TS 25.322 discloses a receiver receiving data packets from a sending unit, each comprising a SN number specifying a sequence of transmission. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4.
recognizing a failure to receive at least one other transmit data packet (missing data packet) from said sending unit;
TS 25.322 discloses recognizing a failure to receive at least one data packet. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.7.2 “[i]f the Receiver detects one or several missing AMD PDUs it shall trigger the transmission of a status report to the Sender”
transmitting at least one status control packet to said sending unit,
TS 25.322 discloses transmitting a status control packet back to the sender. TS 25.322 at Sec 9.4 “when the transmitter receives a STATUS PDU” and at Sec. 9.7.2 “The Receiver transmits status reports to the Sender” as well as Sec. 4.2.1.3.2 “The Receiver acknowledges successful reception or requests retransmission of the missing AMD PDUs by sending one or more STATUS PDUs to the AM RLC peer entity, through its transmitting side”.
said status control packet comprising a header including a packet identifier indicative of a data packet received from said sending unit
TS 25.322 discloses that the AMD PDU includes a header and a data section. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4. In the AMD STATUS PDU, the data section includes SUFIs, one of which may be an ACK SUFI which identifies by a SN the reception of packets up to that SN i.e. a packet identifier indicative of a packet received. Id. at Sec. 9.2.2.11.2. However this is disclosed as being in the end of the data portion, not the header.
and at least one status payload portion including at least one missing packet identifier, said missing packet identifier comprising a transmit packet identifier for said missing data packet;
In TS 25.322, other SUFIs (which would mean data payload portion) may include a list of SNs of packets not received. TS 25.322 at 9.2.2.11.4 “"Sequence Number" of AMD PDU, which was not correctly received”.
said status payload portion includes a negative acknowledgement (NACK) field including said missing packet identifier […]; and
TS 25.322 discloses that the payload section may include a LIST section noted above, which reads a negative ack field as it is a negative acknowledgement of various packets.
receiving at least one […]segmented data packet from said sending unit.
TS 25.322 discloses receiving a segmented data packet from the sending unit. TS 25.322 at Sec. 4.2.1.3.1 and Sec. 11.1.3.
TS 25.322 fails to disclose that the NACK field includes a beginning and ending setoff value as well as receiving a re-segmented data packet.
TS 36.322 V1 discloses an analogous art, namely a system and method for providing status control PDUs to apprise a sending unit of failed PDU reception in an RLC system like that of TS 25.322. TS 36.322 V1 at Sec. 1 and Sec. 4.2.1 as well as Sec. 4.2.1.3.3, 5.2.1, and 6.1.2. TS 36.322 further states that a status PDU may include information on the first and last bytes of an AMD PDU segment within the original AMD PDU. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.7 (segment offset field). This reads a beginning and ending setoff value. See also Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 5.2.1-5.2.3 which mentions a PDU segment to be retransmitted when notified of loss by a status PDU. Lastly, TS 36.322 discloses that when a PDU segment to be retransmitted does not fit a single return PDU it can be re-segmented. Id. at Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 6.1.1.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in the manner taught by TS 36.322 V1, namely as to the use of setoff values as well as re-segmented PDUs. TS 25.322 discloses segmenting PDUs and thus segments of a PDU may be not received. TS 36.322 V1 merely discloses the means for identifying these segments. Further, TS 36.322 V1 states that resending a segment may or may not include re-segmentation. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Lastly, while the combination of TS 25.322 and TS 36.322 V1 above discloses a SN identifier of a received packet in a payload portion instead of a header portion as claimed, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the claimed SN in a header portion of the status control packet. First off, there is no critical teaching in the instant ‘812 Patent as to this particular SN existing in a header as opposed to a payload portion except inasmuch as it is generally disclosed in the provisional ‘893 document; the non-provisional patent itself only mentions a header with a SN corresponding to a SN anticipated to be received. Further, as the requirement for a retransmit packet responsive to the status control packet has been removed from the claim at issue, the actual structure and information contained in the status control packet is not disclosed as having any actual function at all; as there is no actual processing of the information in the packet, any arrangement of the data therein makes no difference whatsoever as to the claimed method which, again, does not use the status control packet or any information therein for any purpose. Thus even if the information in the status control packet or the arrangement thereof were given patentable weight here, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found rearranging the packet of the combined invention of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 to have been obvious as merely an example of rearrangement of parts, an obvious design choice. MPEP § 2144.04 VI. C., citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See further In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Further as to claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein said plurality of transmit data packets are received via an optical communications interface, a wireless communications interface, or a wire line communications interface.
TS 25.322 and TS 36.322 both disclose a wireless interface.
Further as to claim 3:
The method of claim 1, wherein said status control packet further comprises additional bits in at least one of said header portion and said status payload portion for increasing a total bit count for said status control packet to a whole number of bytes.
TS 25.322 discloses padding the packet, which would be for a whole number of bytes. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.2.10 and 9.2.1.5 “padding shall be included to match one of the PDU sizes used by the logical channel on which the control PDUs are sent. The length of the STATUS PDU shall be a multiple of 8 bits.”.
Further as to claim 6:
The method of claim 1, wherein each of said re-segmented data packets further comprises a retransmit SN said retransmit SN specifying said transmit SN associated with a data payload in each of said re-segmented data packets.
TS 25.322 discloses that the data packet sent may be a retransmit packet comprising a SN associated with its data payload. TS 25.322 at Secs. 11.3.2. and 11.3.2.1.
Further as to claim 7:
The method of claim 6, wherein at least one of said re-segmented data packets further comprises a retransmit segment identifier, and said retransmit segment identifier specifying a location in said data payload of a segment in said re-segmented data packet associated with a missing packet identifier.
TS 25.322 discloses that the data packet sent may be a retransmit packet comprising a SN associated with its data payload. TS 25.322 at Secs. 11.3.2. and 11.3.2.1. Further, TS 25.322 further discloses that the retransmitted packet may include length indicators as to the original data, identifying segments. TS 25.322 at Secs. 9.2.2.8 and 11.3.2.1. Lastly, TS 36.322 further discloses setoff values in the AMD PDU (retransmit packet), which identifies a segment of data associated with the missing packet identifier. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.5.
As to claim 36, TS 25.322 discloses:
A method for delivery of one or more data blocks in a digital communications system, the method comprising:
TS 25.322 discloses a digital communication system and method for transmitting data. TS 25.322 at Sec. 4.2.
receiving a plurality of transmit data packets from a sending unit;
TS 25.322 discloses a receiver receiving data packets from a sending unit, each comprising a SN number specifying a sequence of transmission. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4.
recognizing a failure to receive at least one other transmit data packet (missing data packet) from said sending unit;
TS 25.322 discloses recognizing a failure to receive at least one data packet. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.7.2 “[i]f the Receiver detects one or several missing AMD PDUs it shall trigger the transmission of a status report to the Sender”
transmitting at least one status control packet to said sending unit,
TS 25.322 discloses transmitting a status control packet back to the sender. TS 25.322 at Sec 9.4 “when the transmitter receives a STATUS PDU” and at Sec. 9.7.2 “The Receiver transmits status reports to the Sender” as well as Sec. 4.2.1.3.2 “The Receiver acknowledges successful reception or requests retransmission of the missing AMD PDUs by sending one or more STATUS PDUs to the AM RLC peer entity, through its transmitting side”.
said status control packet comprising a header including a packet identifier indicative of a data packet received from said sending unit
TS 25.322 discloses that the AMD PDU includes a header and a data section. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4. In the AMD STATUS PDU, the data section includes SUFIs, one of which may be an ACK SUFI which identifies by a SN the reception of packets up to that SN i.e. a packet identifier indicative of a packet received. Id. at Sec. 9.2.2.11.2. However this is disclosed as being in the end of the data portion, not the header.
and a status payload portion including at least one missing packet identifier comprising a transmit packet identifier for said missing data packet;
In TS 25.322, other SUFIs (which would mean data payload portion) may include a list of SNs of packets not received. TS 25.322 at 9.2.2.11.4 “"Sequence Number" of AMD PDU, which was not correctly received”.
receiving at least one […]segmented data packet from said sending unit.
TS 25.322 discloses receiving a segmented data packet from the sending unit. TS 25.322 at Sec. 4.2.1.3.1 and Sec. 11.1.3.
TS 25.322 fails to disclose that the NACK field includes a beginning and ending setoff value as well as receiving a re-segmented data packet.
TS 36.322 V1 discloses an analogous art, namely a system and method for providing status control PDUs to apprise a sending unit of failed PDU reception in an RLC system like that of TS 25.322. TS 36.322 V1 at Sec. 1 and Sec. 4.2.1 as well as Sec. 4.2.1.3.3, 5.2.1, and 6.1.2. TS 36.322 further states that a status PDU may include information on the first and last bytes of an AMD PDU segment within the original AMD PDU. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.7 (segment offset field). This reads a beginning and ending setoff value. See also Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 5.2.1-5.2.3 which mentions a PDU segment to be retransmitted when notified of loss by a status PDU. Lastly, TS 36.322 discloses that when a PDU segment to be retransmitted does not fit a single return PDU it can be re-segmented. Id. at Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 6.1.1.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in the manner taught by TS 36.322 V1, namely as to the use of setoff values as well as re-segmented PDUs. TS 25.322 discloses segmenting PDUs and thus segments of a PDU may be not received. TS 36.322 V1 merely discloses the means for identifying these segments. Further, TS 36.322 V1 states that resending a segment may or may not include re-segmentation. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Lastly, while the combination of TS 25.322 and TS 36.322 V1 above discloses a SN identifier of a received packet in a payload portion instead of a header portion as claimed, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the claimed SN in a header portion of the status control packet. First off, there is no critical teaching in the instant ‘812 Patent as to this particular SN existing in a header as opposed to a payload portion except inasmuch as it is generally disclosed in the provisional ‘893 document; the non-provisional patent itself only mentions a header with a SN corresponding to a SN anticipated to be received. Further, as the requirement for a retransmit packet responsive to the status control packet has been removed from the claim at issue, the actual structure and information contained in the status control packet is not disclosed as having any actual function at all; as there is no actual processing of the information in the packet, any arrangement of the data therein makes no difference whatsoever as to the claimed method which, again, does not use the status control packet or any information therein for any purpose. Thus even if the information in the status control packet or the arrangement thereof were given patentable weight here, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found rearranging the packet of the combined invention of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 to have been obvious as merely an example of rearrangement of parts, an obvious design choice. MPEP § 2144.04 VI. C., citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See further In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Further as to claim 37:
The method of claim 36, wherein said plurality of transmit data packets are received via an optical communications interface, a wireless communications interface, or a wire line communications interface.
TS 25.322 and TS 36.322 both disclose a wireless interface.
Further as to claim 38:
The method of claim 36, wherein said status control packet further comprises additional bits in at least one of said header portion and said status payload portion for increasing a total bit count for said status control packet to a whole number of bytes.
TS 25.322 discloses padding the packet, which would be for a whole number of bytes. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.2.10 and 9.2.1.5 “padding shall be included to match one of the PDU sizes used by the logical channel on which the control PDUs are sent. The length of the STATUS PDU shall be a multiple of 8 bits.”
Further as to claim 40:
The method of claim 36, wherein said transmit packet identifier comprises a transmit sequence number (SN), said transmit SN specifying an initial sequence of transmission of transmit data packets from said sending unit.
TS 25.322 discloses a receiver receiving data packets from a sending unit, each comprising a SN number specifying a sequence of transmission. This SN is the transmit packet identifier. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4.
Further as to claim 41:
The method of claim 40, wherein each of said re-segmented data packets further comprises a retransmit SN said retransmit SN specifying said transmit SN associated with a data payload in each of said re-segmented data packets.
TS 25.322 discloses that the data packet sent may be a retransmit packet comprising a SN associated with its data payload. TS 25.322 at Secs. 11.3.2. and 11.3.2.1.
Further as to claim 42:
The method of claim 41, wherein at least one of said re-segmented data packets further comprises a retransmit segment identifier, and said retransmit segment identifier specifying a location in said data payload of a segment in said re-segmented data packet associated with a missing packet identifier.
TS 25.322 discloses that the data packet sent may be a retransmit packet comprising a SN associated with its data payload. TS 25.322 at Secs. 11.3.2. and 11.3.2.1. Further, TS 25.322 further discloses that the retransmitted packet may include length indicators as to the original data, identifying segments. TS 25.322 at Secs. 9.2.2.8 and 11.3.2.1. Lastly, TS 36.322 further discloses setoff values in the AMD PDU (retransmit packet), which identifies a segment of data associated with the missing packet identifier. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.5.
Further as to claim 44:
The method of claim 41, wherein said header portion for said status control packet comprises one or more bits to create a byte-complete packet, said byte-complete packet is an integer number of octets in length.
TS 25.322 discloses padding the packet, which would be for a whole number of bytes. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.2.10 and 9.2.1.5 “padding shall be included to match one of the PDU sizes used by the logical channel on which the control PDUs are sent. The length of the STATUS PDU shall be a multiple of 8 bits.”.
Further as to claim 45:
The method of claim 40, wherein said status payload portion comprises one or more negative acknowledgement (NACK) fields, each of said NACK fields including one of said missing packet identifiers.
TS 25.322 discloses that the payload section may include a LIST section noted above, which reads a negative ack field as it is a negative acknowledgement of various packets.
As to claim 73, TS 25.322 discloses:
A digital communications method comprising:
TS 25.322 discloses a digital communication system and method for transmitting data. TS 25.322 at Sec. 4.2.
receiving an RLC PDU;
TS 25.322 discloses a receiver receiving PDUs in an RLC system from sending unit., TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4. This includes receiving a segmented data packet from the sending unit. TS 25.322 at Sec. 4.2.1.3.1 and Sec. 11.1.3.
recognizing a failure to receive a […]segmented RLC PDU;
TS 25.322 discloses recognizing a failure to receive at least one PDU, which would include the above segmented PDU. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.7.2 “[i]f the Receiver detects one or several missing AMD PDUs it shall trigger the transmission of a status report to the Sender”
generating a status packet comprising a sequence number for the […]segmented RLC PDU:
TS 25.322 discloses configuring a status control packet to be transmitted back to the sender when failure to receive is determined. TS 25.322 at Secs 9.7.2, 11.3.4.9, and 11.5.2. Such is an AMD STATUS PDU, the data section including SUFIs, one of which may be an ACK SUFI which identifies by a SN the reception of packets up to that SN i.e. a packet identifier indicative of a packet received. TS 25.322 at Secs. 9.2.2.11.2-9.2.2.11.4.
transmitting said status packet;
TS 25.322 discloses transmitting the status control packet back to the sender. TS 25.322 at Sec 9.4 “when the transmitter receives a STATUS PDU” and at Sec. 9.7.2 “The Receiver transmits status reports to the Sender” as well as Sec. 4.2.1.3.2 “The Receiver acknowledges successful reception or requests retransmission of the missing AMD PDUs by sending one or more STATUS PDUs to the AM RLC peer entity, through its transmitting side”.
receiving the […]segmented RLC PDU.
As noted above, TS 25.322 discloses a receiver receiving PDUs in an RLC system from sending unit., TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4. This includes receiving a segmented data packet from the sending unit. TS 25.322 at Sec. 4.2.1.3.1 and Sec. 11.1.3. Note here that the claim does not require this reception to be responsive to the status control packet, thus it is not necessarily a retransmission. That being said, TS 25.322 discloses receiving the PDU whose reception failure was noted in the STATUS PDU. Id. at Secs. 11.3.1-11.3.2.
TS 25.322 fails to disclose that the status packet includes a beginning and ending setoff value as well as receiving a re-segmented data packet.
TS 36.322 V1 discloses an analogous art, namely a system and method for providing status control PDUs to apprise a sending unit of failed PDU reception in an RLC system like that of TS 25.322. TS 36.322 V1 at Sec. 1 and Sec. 4.2.1 as well as Sec. 4.2.1.3.3, 5.2.1, and 6.1.2. TS 36.322 further states that a status PDU may include information on the first and last bytes of an AMD PDU segment within the original AMD PDU. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.7 (segment offset field). This reads a beginning and ending setoff value. See also Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 5.2.1-5.2.3 which mentions a PDU segment to be retransmitted when notified of loss by a status PDU. Lastly, TS 36.322 discloses that when a PDU segment to be retransmitted does not fit a single return PDU it can be re-segmented. Id. at Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 6.1.1.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in the manner taught by TS 36.322 V1, namely as to the use of setoff values as well as re-segmented PDUs. TS 25.322 discloses segmenting PDUs and thus segments of a PDU may be not received. TS 36.322 V1 merely discloses the means for identifying these segments. Further, TS 36.322 V1 states that resending a segment may or may not include re-segmentation. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 4, 11-14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24, 25, 39, 47-53, 55, 56, and 58-60, and 74 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and US Pat 7,957,389 to Hu et al., of record.
As to claim 4, TS 25.322 discloses:
A method for delivery of one or more data blocks in a digital communications system, the method comprising:
TS 25.322 discloses a digital communication system and method for transmitting data. TS 25.322 at Sec. 4.2.
receiving a plurality of transmit data packets from a sending unit, each transmit data packet comprising a transmit sequence number (SN) specifying a sequence of transmission of transmit data packets;
TS 25.322 discloses a receiver receiving data packets from a sending unit, each comprising a SN number specifying a sequence of transmission. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4.
extracting a transmit packet identifier associated with each of said plurality of transmit data packets;
identifying a missing data identifier based on extracting;
[…], specifying said one of said transmit data packets associated with said missing packet identifier as said missing data packet;
TS 25.322 discloses recognizing a failure to receive at least one data packet. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.7.2 “[i]f the Receiver detects one or several missing AMD PDUs it shall trigger the transmission of a status report to the Sender”. TS 25.322 further discloses that SNs are “checked” in the process of determining a lost packet, which means the SN is inherently extracted in order to check it. Id. at Secs. 5 and 6 “sequence number check”. This specifies the missing packet as lost. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.2 “The Receiver acknowledges successful reception or requests retransmission of the missing AMD PDUs by sending one or more STATUS PDUs to the AM RLC peer entity, through its transmitting side”.
transmitting at least one status control packet to said sending unit,
TS 25.322 discloses transmitting a status control packet back to the sender. TS 25.322 at Sec 9.4 “when the transmitter receives a STATUS PDU” and at Sec. 9.7.2 “The Receiver transmits status reports to the Sender” as well as Sec. 4.2.1.3.2 “The Receiver acknowledges successful reception or requests retransmission of the missing AMD PDUs by sending one or more STATUS PDUs to the AM RLC peer entity, through its transmitting side”.
said status control packet comprising a header including a packet identifier indicative of a data packet received from said sending unit
TS 25.322 discloses that the AMD PDU includes a header and a data section. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4. In the AMD STATUS PDU, the data section includes SUFIs, one of which may be an ACK SUFI which identifies by a SN the reception of packets up to that SN i.e. a packet identifier indicative of a packet received. Id. at Sec. 9.2.2.11.2. However this is disclosed as being in the end of the data portion, not the header.
and at least one status payload portion including said missing packet identifier, said missing packet identifier comprising a transmit packet identifier for said missing data packet;
In TS 25.322, other SUFIs (which would mean data payload portion) may include a list of SNs of packets not received. TS 25.322 at 9.2.2.11.4 “"Sequence Number" of AMD PDU, which was not correctly received”.
said status payload portion includes a negative acknowledgement (NACK) field including said missing packet identifier, […]; and
TS 25.322 discloses that the payload section may include a LIST section noted above, which reads a negative ack field as it is a negative acknowledgement of various packets.
receiving at least one […]segmented data packet from said sending unit.
TS 25.322 discloses receiving a segmented data packet from the sending unit. TS 25.322 at Sec. 4.2.1.3.1 and Sec. 11.1.3.
TS 25.322 fails to disclose that the NACK field includes a beginning and ending setoff value as well as receiving a re-segmented data packet.
TS 36.322 V1 discloses an analogous art, namely a system and method for providing status control PDUs to apprise a sending unit of failed PDU reception in an RLC system like that of TS 25.322. TS 36.322 V1 at Sec. 1 and Sec. 4.2.1 as well as Sec. 4.2.1.3.3, 5.2.1, and 6.1.2. TS 36.322 further states that a status PDU may include information on the first and last bytes of an AMD PDU segment within the original AMD PDU. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.7 (segment offset field). This reads a beginning and ending setoff value. See also Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 5.2.1-5.2.3 which mentions a PDU segment to be retransmitted when notified of loss by a status PDU. Lastly, TS 36.322 discloses that when a PDU segment to be retransmitted does not fit a single return PDU it can be re-segmented. Id. at Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 6.1.1.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in the manner taught by TS 36.322 V1, namely as to the use of setoff values as well as re-segmented PDUs. TS 25.322 discloses segmenting PDUs and thus segments of a PDU may be not received. TS 36.322 V1 merely discloses the means for identifying these segments. Further, TS 36.322 V1 states that resending a segment may or may not include re-segmentation. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
TS 25.322 as modified by TS 36.322 V1 still fails to disclose a timer for determining the packet is lost.
Hu discloses an analogous art, namely sending and receiving RLC PDUs between a sending unit and a receiving unit, including means for producing and sending a status packet from the receiver to the sender when it is determined that a packet was not received. Hu at 5/5-39. Hu states that, upon initially determining a packet may be missing by noting a lack of the packet’s in the receiving of multiple packets, a timer is set and, upon expiration of said timer, the deeming of the packet as missing is made complete. Id. at col. 5/40-47.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 in the manner taught by Hu, namely as to the use of a timer. TS 25.322 discloses a number of timers for use in determining the sending of a Status PDU, and Hu merely discloses the use of such a timer in accurately deeming a packet as lost. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Lastly, while the combination of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and Hu above discloses a SN identifier of a received packet in a payload portion instead of a header portion as claimed, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the claimed SN in a header portion of the status control packet. First off, there is no critical teaching in the instant ‘812 Patent as to this particular SN existing in a header as opposed to a payload portion except inasmuch as it is generally disclosed in the provisional ‘893 document; the non-provisional patent itself only mentions a header with a SN corresponding to a SN anticipated to be received. Further, as the requirement for a retransmit packet responsive to the status control packet has been removed from the claim at issue, the actual structure and information contained in the status control packet is not disclosed as having any actual function at all; as there is no actual processing of the information in the packet, any arrangement of the data therein makes no difference whatsoever as to the claimed method which, again, does not use the status control packet or any information therein for any purpose. Thus even if the information in the status control packet or the arrangement thereof were given patentable weight here, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found rearranging the packet of the combined invention of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 to have been obvious as merely an example of rearrangement of parts, an obvious design choice. MPEP § 2144.04 VI. C., citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See further In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Further as to claim 24:
The method of claim 4, wherein said header portion for said status control packet comprises one or more bits to create a byte-complete packet, said byte-complete packet is an integer number of octets in length.
TS 25.322 discloses padding the packet, which would be for a whole number of bytes. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.2.10 and 9.2.1.5 “padding shall be included to match one of the PDU sizes used by the logical channel on which the control PDUs are sent. The length of the STATUS PDU shall be a multiple of 8 bits.”
As to claim 11, TS 25.322 discloses:
A digital communications system for delivering one or more data blocks, the system comprising at least one transmit/receive unit (TRU), said TRU comprising:
TS 25.322 discloses a digital communication system and method for transmitting data. TS 25.322 at Sec. 4.2. TS 25.322 discloses a UE which is a transmit/receive unit which receives data packets. Id. at Secs. 1, 4.2.1 “[a] Sender or a Receiver can reside at either the UE or the UTRAN”, and 6.1.
a storage element for receiving a plurality of transmit data packets, each transmit data packet comprising a transmit sequence number (SN) specifying a sequence of transmission of transmit data packets, and at least one […]segmented data packet from a sending unit; and
TS 25.322 discloses that the UE may receive a plurality of transmit data packets, each comprising a SN specifying a sequence of transmission. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4. TS 25.322 further discloses receiving a segmented data packet from the sending unit. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.1 and Sec. 11.1.3. TS 25.322 discloses that the UE has a memory for receiving the data packets. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.2.
a processing element communicatively coupled to said storage element, said processing element configured for:
TS 25.322 discloses a process below performed by the UE, and discloses that the UE may “process” the data. TS 25.322 at Sec. 11.3.4.9.
recognizing a failure to receive at least one other transmit data packet (missing data packet) from said sending unit, and
TS 25.322 discloses recognizing a failure to receive at least one data packet. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.7.2 “[i]f the Receiver detects one or several missing AMD PDUs it shall trigger the transmission of a status report to the Sender”
configuring at least one status control packet for transmission to said sending unit,
TS 25.322 discloses configuring a status control packet to be transmitted back to the sender when failure to receive is determined. TS 25.322 at Secs 9.7.2, 11.3.4.9, and 11.5.2. Transmission of the status control packet is further disclosed in Sec. 4.2.1.3.2 “The Receiver acknowledges successful reception or requests retransmission of the missing AMD PDUs by sending one or more STATUS PDUs to the AM RLC peer entity, through its transmitting side”.
said status control packet comprising a header portion including a packet identifier which is indicative of a transmit SN for a data packet received from said sending unit
TS 25.322 discloses that the AMD PDU includes a header and a data section. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4. In the AMD STATUS PDU, the data section includes SUFIs, one of which may be an ACK SUFI which identifies by a SN the reception of packets up to that SN i.e. a packet identifier indicative of a packet received. Id. at Sec. 9.2.2.11.2. However this is disclosed as being in the end of the data portion, not the header.
and at least one status payload portion including at least one negative acknowledgement (NACK) field including a missing packet identifier, said missing packet identifier comprising a transmit packet identifier for said missing data packet, […].
In TS 25.322, other SUFIs (which would mean data payload portion) may include a list of SNs of packets not received. TS 25.322 at 9.2.2.11.4 “"Sequence Number" of AMD PDU, which was not correctly received”. TS 25.322 discloses that the payload section may include a LIST section noted above, which reads a negative ack field as it is a negative acknowledgement of various packets.
TS 25.322 fails to disclose that the NACK field includes a beginning and ending setoff value as well as receiving a re-segmented data packet.
TS 36.322 V1 discloses an analogous art, namely a system and method for providing status control PDUs to apprise a sending unit of failed PDU reception in an RLC system like that of TS 25.322. TS 36.322 V1 at Sec. 1 and Sec. 4.2.1 as well as Sec. 4.2.1.3.3, 5.2.1, and 6.1.2. TS 36.322 further states that a status PDU may include information on the first and last bytes of an AMD PDU segment within the original AMD PDU. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.7 (segment offset field). This reads a beginning and ending setoff value. See also Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 5.2.1-5.2.3 which mentions a PDU segment to be retransmitted when notified of loss by a status PDU. Lastly, TS 36.322 discloses that when a PDU segment to be retransmitted does not fit a single return PDU it can be re-segmented. Id. at Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 6.1.1.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in the manner taught by TS 36.322 V1, namely as to the use of setoff values as well as re-segmented PDUs. TS 25.322 discloses segmenting PDUs and thus segments of a PDU may be not received. TS 36.322 V1 merely discloses the means for identifying these segments. Further, TS 36.322 V1 states that resending a segment may or may not include re-segmentation. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
TS 25.322 as modified by TS 36.322 V1 still fails to specify a processor for performing the claimed functions of recognizing and configuring.
Hu discloses an analogous art, namely sending and receiving RLC PDUs between a sending unit and a receiving unit, including means for producing and sending a status packet from the receiver to the sender when it is determined that a packet was not received. Hu at 5/5-39. Hu states that the determining that a packet is missing and the subsequent actions as to reporting such are performed by a processor device which may comprise an ASIC which is a special-purpose computer. Id. at 4/11-24 and 8/47-67.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 in the manner taught by Hu, namely as to the use of a processor. TS 25.322 discloses a number of processes for use in a UE to determine the sending of a Status PDU. TS 25.322, in turn, incorporates by reference TS 25.301. TS 25.322 at Secs. 2 and 5. TS 25.301 states that the units involved may comprise a processor. TS 25.301 at Sec. 5.6.7. One of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that a processor device would have been a necessary part of the UE of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 in order to process the packets from the memory and produce a status control packet. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention further would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Lastly, while the combination of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and Hu above discloses a SN identifier of a received packet in a payload portion instead of a header portion as claimed, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the claimed SN in a header portion of the status control packet. First off, there is no critical teaching in the instant ‘812 Patent as to this particular SN existing in a header as opposed to a payload portion except inasmuch as it is generally disclosed in the provisional ‘893 document; the non-provisional patent itself only mentions a header with a SN corresponding to a SN anticipated to be received. Further, as the requirement for a retransmit packet responsive to the status control packet has been removed from the claim at issue, the actual structure and information contained in the status control packet is not disclosed as having any actual function at all; as there is no actual processing of the information in the packet, any arrangement of the data therein makes no difference whatsoever as to the claimed method which, again, does not use the status control packet or any information therein for any purpose. Thus even if the information in the status control packet or the arrangement thereof were given patentable weight here, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found rearranging the packet of the combined invention of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 to have been obvious as merely an example of rearrangement of parts, an obvious design choice. MPEP § 2144.04 VI. C., citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See further In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Further as to claim 12:
The system of claim 11, further comprising a transceiver communicatively coupled to at least said processing element, said transceiver comprising an optical communications interface, a wireless communications interface, or a wire line communications interface.
TS 25.322 and TS 36.322 both disclose a wireless interface.
Further as to claim 13:
The system of claim 11, wherein said status control packet further comprises additional bits in at least one of said header portion and said status payload portion for increasing a total bit count for said status control packet to a whole number of bytes.
TS 25.322 discloses padding the packet, which would be for a whole number of bytes. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.2.10 and 9.2.1.5 “padding shall be included to match one of the PDU sizes used by the logical channel on which the control PDUs are sent. The length of the STATUS PDU shall be a multiple of 8 bits.”.
Further as to claim 16:
The system of claim 11, wherein each of said re-segmented data packets further comprises a retransmit SN said retransmit SN specifying said transmit SN associated with a data payload in each of said re-segmented data packets.
TS 25.322 discloses that the data packet sent may be a retransmit packet comprising a SN associated with its data payload. TS 25.322 at Secs. 11.3.2. and 11.3.2.1.
Further as to claim 17:
The system of claim 16, wherein at least one of said re-segmented data packets further comprises a retransmit segment identifier, and said retransmit segment identifier specifies a location in said data payload of a segment in said re-segmented data packet associated with a missing packet identifier.
TS 25.322 discloses that the data packet sent may be a retransmit packet comprising a SN associated with its data payload. TS 25.322 at Secs. 11.3.2. and 11.3.2.1. Further, TS 25.322 further discloses that the retransmitted packet may include length indicators as to the original data, identifying segments. TS 25.322 at Secs. 9.2.2.8 and 11.3.2.1. Lastly, TS 36.322 further discloses setoff values in the AMD PDU (retransmit packet), which identifies a segment of data associated with the missing packet identifier. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.5.
As to claim 14, TS 25.322 discloses:
A digital communications system for delivering one or more data blocks, the system comprising at least one transmit/receive unit (TRU), said TRU comprising:
TS 25.322 discloses a digital communication system and method for transmitting data. TS 25.322 at Sec. 4.2. TS 25.322 discloses a UE which is a transmit/receive unit which receives data packets. Id. at Secs. 1, 4.2.1 “[a] Sender or a Receiver can reside at either the UE or the UTRAN”, and 6.1.
a storage element for receiving a plurality of transmit data packets, each transmit data packet comprising a transmit sequence number (SN) specifying a sequence of transmission of transmit data packets, and at least one […]segmented data packet from a sending unit; and
TS 25.322 discloses that the UE may receive a plurality of transmit data packets, each comprising a SN specifying a sequence of transmission. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4. TS 25.322 further discloses receiving a segmented data packet from the sending unit. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.1 and Sec. 11.1.3. TS 25.322 discloses that the UE has a memory for receiving the data packets. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.2.
a processing element communicatively coupled to said storage element, said processing element configured for:
TS 25.322 discloses a process below performed by the UE, and discloses that the UE may “process” the data. TS 25.322 at Sec. 11.3.4.9.
recognizing a failure to receive at least one other transmit data packet (missing data packet) from said sending unit, comprising:
TS 25.322 discloses recognizing a failure to receive at least one data packet. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.7.2 “[i]f the Receiver detects one or several missing AMD PDUs it shall trigger the transmission of a status report to the Sender”
extracting said transmit packet identifier associated with each of said plurality of transmit data packets;
identifying a missing data identifier based on extracting;
[…] specifying said one of said transmit data packets associated with said missing packet identifier as said missing data packet,
TS 25.322 discloses recognizing a failure to receive at least one data packet. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.7.2 “[i]f the Receiver detects one or several missing AMD PDUs it shall trigger the transmission of a status report to the Sender”. TS 25.322 further discloses that SNs are “checked” in the process of determining a lost packet, which means the SN is inherently extracted in order to check it. Id. at Secs. 5 and 6 “sequence number check”. This specifies the missing packet as lost. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.2 “The Receiver acknowledges successful reception or requests retransmission of the missing AMD PDUs by sending one or more STATUS PDUs to the AM RLC peer entity, through its transmitting side”.
and configuring at least one status control packet for transmission to said sending unit,
TS 25.322 discloses configuring a status control packet to be transmitted back to the sender when failure to receive is determined. TS 25.322 at Secs 9.7.2, 11.3.4.9, and 11.5.2. Transmission of the status control packet is further disclosed in Sec. 4.2.1.3.2 “The Receiver acknowledges successful reception or requests retransmission of the missing AMD PDUs by sending one or more STATUS PDUs to the AM RLC peer entity, through its transmitting side”.
said status control packet comprising a header portion including a packet identifier which is indicative of a transmit SN for a data packet received from said sending unit
TS 25.322 discloses that the AMD PDU includes a header and a data section. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4. In the AMD STATUS PDU, the data section includes SUFIs, one of which may be an ACK SUFI which identifies by a SN the reception of packets up to that SN i.e. a packet identifier indicative of a packet received. Id. at Sec. 9.2.2.11.2. However this is disclosed as being in the end of the data portion, not the header.
and at least one status payload portion including at least one negative acknowledgement (NACK) field including a missing packet identifier, said missing packet identifier comprising a transmit packet identifier for said missing data packet, […]
In TS 25.322, other SUFIs (which would mean data payload portion) may include a list of SNs of packets not received. TS 25.322 at 9.2.2.11.4 “"Sequence Number" of AMD PDU, which was not correctly received”. TS 25.322 discloses that the payload section may include a LIST section noted above, which reads a negative ack field as it is a negative acknowledgement of various packets.
TS 25.322 fails to disclose that the NACK field includes a beginning and ending setoff value as well as receiving a re-segmented data packet.
TS 36.322 V1 discloses an analogous art, namely a system and method for providing status control PDUs to apprise a sending unit of failed PDU reception in an RLC system like that of TS 25.322. TS 36.322 V1 at Sec. 1 and Sec. 4.2.1 as well as Sec. 4.2.1.3.3, 5.2.1, and 6.1.2. TS 36.322 further states that a status PDU may include information on the first and last bytes of an AMD PDU segment within the original AMD PDU. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.7 (segment offset field). This reads a beginning and ending setoff value. See also Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 5.2.1-5.2.3 which mentions a PDU segment to be retransmitted when notified of loss by a status PDU. Lastly, TS 36.322 discloses that when a PDU segment to be retransmitted does not fit a single return PDU it can be re-segmented. Id. at Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 6.1.1.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in the manner taught by TS 36.322 V1, namely as to the use of setoff values as well as re-segmented PDUs. TS 25.322 discloses segmenting PDUs and thus segments of a PDU may be not received. TS 36.322 V1 merely discloses the means for identifying these segments. Further, TS 36.322 V1 states that resending a segment may or may not include re-segmentation. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
TS 25.322 as modified by TS 36.322 V1 still fails to specify a processor for performing the claimed functions of recognizing and configuring as well as a timer for determining the packet is lost.
Hu discloses an analogous art, namely sending and receiving RLC PDUs between a sending unit and a receiving unit, including means for producing and sending a status packet from the receiver to the sender when it is determined that a packet was not received. Hu at 5/5-39. Hu states that, upon initially determining a packet may be missing by noting a lack of the packet’s in the receiving of multiple packets, a timer is set and, upon expiration of said timer, the deeming of the packet as missing is made complete. Id. at col. 5/40-47. Hu states that the determining that a packet is missing and the subsequent actions as to reporting such are performed by a processor device which may comprise an ASIC which is a special-purpose computer. Id. at 4/11-24 and 8/47-67.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 in the manner taught by Hu, namely as to the use of a processor and a timer. TS 25.322 discloses a number of processes for use in a UE to determine the sending of a Status PDU. TS 25.322, in turn, incorporates by reference TS 25.301. TS 25.322 at Secs. 2 and 5. TS 25.301 states that the units involved may comprise a processor. TS 25.301 at Sec. 5.6.7. TS 25.322 discloses a number of timers for use in determining the sending of a Status PDU, and Hu merely discloses the use of such a timer in accurately deeming a packet as lost. One of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that a processor device would have been a necessary part of the UE of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 in order to process the packets from the memory and produce a status control packet. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention further would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Lastly, while the combination of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and Hu above discloses a SN identifier of a received packet in a payload portion instead of a header portion as claimed, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the claimed SN in a header portion of the status control packet. First off, there is no critical teaching in the instant ‘812 Patent as to this particular SN existing in a header as opposed to a payload portion except inasmuch as it is generally disclosed in the provisional ‘893 document; the non-provisional patent itself only mentions a header with a SN corresponding to a SN anticipated to be received. Further, as the requirement for a retransmit packet responsive to the status control packet has been removed from the claim at issue, the actual structure and information contained in the status control packet is not disclosed as having any actual function at all; as there is no actual processing of the information in the packet, any arrangement of the data therein makes no difference whatsoever as to the claimed method which, again, does not use the status control packet or any information therein for any purpose. Thus even if the information in the status control packet or the arrangement thereof were given patentable weight here, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found rearranging the packet of the combined invention of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 to have been obvious as merely an example of rearrangement of parts, an obvious design choice. MPEP § 2144.04 VI. C., citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See further In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Further as to claim 25:
The system of claim 14, wherein said header portion for said status control packet comprises one or more bits to create a byte-complete packet, said byte-complete packet is an integer number of octets in length
TS 25.322 discloses padding the packet, which would be for a whole number of bytes. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.2.10 and 9.2.1.5 “padding shall be included to match one of the PDU sizes used by the logical channel on which the control PDUs are sent. The length of the STATUS PDU shall be a multiple of 8 bits.”.
As to claim 21, TS 25.322 discloses:
A digital communications system for delivering one or more data blocks, the system comprising at least one receiving unit, said receiving unit comprising:
TS 25.322 discloses a digital communication system and method for transmitting data. TS 25.322 at Sec. 4.2. TS 25.322 discloses a UE which is a transmit/receive unit which receives data packets. Id. at Secs. 1, 4.2.1 “[a] Sender or a Receiver can reside at either the UE or the UTRAN”, and 6.1.
a storage element for receiving a plurality of transmit data packets, each transmit data packet comprising a transmit sequence number (SN) specifying a sequence of transmission of transmit data packets, and at least one […]segmented data packet from a sending unit; and
TS 25.322 discloses that the UE may receive a plurality of transmit data packets, each comprising a SN specifying a sequence of transmission. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4. TS 25.322 further discloses receiving a segmented data packet from the sending unit. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.1 and Sec. 11.1.3. TS 25.322 discloses that the UE has a memory for receiving the data packets. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.2.
a processing element communicatively coupled to said storage element, said processing element configured for:
TS 25.322 discloses a process below performed by the UE, and discloses that the UE may “process” the data. TS 25.322 at Sec. 11.3.4.9.
recognizing a failure to receive at least one other transmit data packet (missing data packet) from said sending unit, and
TS 25.322 discloses recognizing a failure to receive at least one data packet. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.7.2 “[i]f the Receiver detects one or several missing AMD PDUs it shall trigger the transmission of a status report to the Sender”
configuring at least a status control packet for transmission to said sending unit,
TS 25.322 discloses configuring a status control packet to be transmitted back to the sender when failure to receive is determined. TS 25.322 at Secs 9.7.2, 11.3.4.9, and 11.5.2. Transmission of the status control packet is further disclosed in Sec. 4.2.1.3.2 “The Receiver acknowledges successful reception or requests retransmission of the missing AMD PDUs by sending one or more STATUS PDUs to the AM RLC peer entity, through its transmitting side”.
said status control packet comprising a header portion including a packet identifier indicative of a transmit SN for a data packet received from said sending unit
TS 25.322 discloses that the AMD PDU includes a header and a data section. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4. In the AMD STATUS PDU, the data section includes SUFIs, one of which may be an ACK SUFI which identifies by a SN the reception of packets up to that SN i.e. a packet identifier indicative of a packet received. Id. at Sec. 9.2.2.11.2. However this is disclosed as being in the end of the data portion, not the header.
and at least one status payload portion including at least one missing packet identifier, said missing packet identifier comprising a transmit packet identifier for said missing data packet, said status payload portion includes at least one negative acknowledgement (NACK) field including a missing packet identifier […],
In TS 25.322, other SUFIs (which would mean data payload portion) may include a list of SNs of packets not received. TS 25.322 at 9.2.2.11.4 “"Sequence Number" of AMD PDU, which was not correctly received”. TS 25.322 discloses that the payload section may include a LIST section noted above, which reads a negative ack field as it is a negative acknowledgement of various packets.
wherein said status control packet has additional bits in at least one of said header portion and said status payload portion for increasing a total bit count for said status control packet to a whole number of bytes.
TS 25.322 discloses padding the packet, which would be for a whole number of bytes. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.2.10 and 9.2.1.5 “padding shall be included to match one of the PDU sizes used by the logical channel on which the control PDUs are sent. The length of the STATUS PDU shall be a multiple of 8 bits.”.
TS 25.322 fails to disclose that the NACK field includes a beginning and ending setoff value as well as receiving a re-segmented data packet.
TS 36.322 V1 discloses an analogous art, namely a system and method for providing status control PDUs to apprise a sending unit of failed PDU reception in an RLC system like that of TS 25.322. TS 36.322 V1 at Sec. 1 and Sec. 4.2.1 as well as Sec. 4.2.1.3.3, 5.2.1, and 6.1.2. TS 36.322 further states that a status PDU may include information on the first and last bytes of an AMD PDU segment within the original AMD PDU. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.7 (segment offset field). This reads a beginning and ending setoff value. See also Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 5.2.1-5.2.3 which mentions a PDU segment to be retransmitted when notified of loss by a status PDU. Lastly, TS 36.322 discloses that when a PDU segment to be retransmitted does not fit a single return PDU it can be re-segmented. Id. at Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 6.1.1.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in the manner taught by TS 36.322 V1, namely as to the use of setoff values as well as re-segmented PDUs. TS 25.322 discloses segmenting PDUs and thus segments of a PDU may be not received. TS 36.322 V1 merely discloses the means for identifying these segments. Further, TS 36.322 V1 states that resending a segment may or may not include re-segmentation. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
TS 25.322 as modified by TS 36.322 V1 still fails to specify a processor for performing the claimed functions of recognizing and configuring.
Hu discloses an analogous art, namely sending and receiving RLC PDUs between a sending unit and a receiving unit, including means for producing and sending a status packet from the receiver to the sender when it is determined that a packet was not received. Hu at 5/5-39. Hu states that the determining that a packet is missing and the subsequent actions as to reporting such are performed by a processor device which may comprise an ASIC which is a special-purpose computer. Id. at 4/11-24 and 8/47-67.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 in the manner taught by Hu, namely as to the use of a processor. TS 25.322 discloses a number of processes for use in a UE to determine the sending of a Status PDU. TS 25.322, in turn, incorporates by reference TS 25.301. TS 25.322 at Secs. 2 and 5. TS 25.301 states that the units involved may comprise a processor. TS 25.301 at Sec. 5.6.7. One of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that a processor device would have been a necessary part of the UE of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 in order to process the packets from the memory and produce a status control packet. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention further would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Lastly, while the combination of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and Hu above discloses a SN identifier of a received packet in a payload portion instead of a header portion as claimed, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the claimed SN in a header portion of the status control packet. First off, there is no critical teaching in the instant ‘812 Patent as to this particular SN existing in a header as opposed to a payload portion except inasmuch as it is generally disclosed in the provisional ‘893 document; the non-provisional patent itself only mentions a header with a SN corresponding to a SN anticipated to be received. Further, as the requirement for a retransmit packet responsive to the status control packet has been removed from the claim at issue, the actual structure and information contained in the status control packet is not disclosed as having any actual function at all; as there is no actual processing of the information in the packet, any arrangement of the data therein makes no difference whatsoever as to the claimed method which, again, does not use the status control packet or any information therein for any purpose. Thus even if the information in the status control packet or the arrangement thereof were given patentable weight here, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found rearranging the packet of the combined invention of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 to have been obvious as merely an example of rearrangement of parts, an obvious design choice. MPEP § 2144.04 VI. C., citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See further In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Further as to claim 22:
The system of claim 21, each of said re-segmented data packets further comprises a retransmit SN said retransmit SN specifying said transmit SN associated with a data payload in each of said re-segmented data packets.
TS 25.322 discloses that the data packet sent may be a retransmit packet comprising a SN associated with its data payload. TS 25.322 at Secs. 11.3.2. and 11.3.2.1.
As to claim 39, TS 25.322 discloses:
A method for delivery of one or more data blocks in a digital communications system, the method comprising:
TS 25.322 discloses a digital communication system and method for transmitting data. TS 25.322 at Sec. 4.2.
receiving a plurality of transmit data packets from a sending unit;
TS 25.322 discloses a receiver receiving data packets from a sending unit, each comprising a SN number specifying a sequence of transmission. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4.
extracting said transmit packet identifier associated with each of said plurality of transmit data packets;
identifying said missing data identifier based on extracting; […] specifying said one of said transmit data packets associated with said missing packet identifier as a missing data packet;
TS 25.322 discloses recognizing a failure to receive at least one data packet. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.7.2 “[i]f the Receiver detects one or several missing AMD PDUs it shall trigger the transmission of a status report to the Sender”. TS 25.322 further discloses that SNs are “checked” in the process of determining a lost packet, which means the SN is inherently extracted in order to check it. Id. at Secs. 5 and 6 “sequence number check”. This specifies the missing packet as lost. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.2 “The Receiver acknowledges successful reception or requests retransmission of the missing AMD PDUs by sending one or more STATUS PDUs to the AM RLC peer entity, through its transmitting side”.
transmitting at least one status control packet to said sending unit,
TS 25.322 discloses transmitting a status control packet back to the sender. TS 25.322 at Sec 9.4 “when the transmitter receives a STATUS PDU” and at Sec. 9.7.2 “The Receiver transmits status reports to the Sender” as well as Sec. 4.2.1.3.2 “The Receiver acknowledges successful reception or requests retransmission of the missing AMD PDUs by sending one or more STATUS PDUs to the AM RLC peer entity, through its transmitting side”.
said status control packet comprising a header including a packet identifier indicative of a data packet received from said sending unit
TS 25.322 discloses that the AMD PDU includes a header and a data section. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4. In the AMD STATUS PDU, the data section includes SUFIs, one of which may be an ACK SUFI which identifies by a SN the reception of packets up to that SN i.e. a packet identifier indicative of a packet received. Id. at Sec. 9.2.2.11.2. However this is disclosed as being in the end of the data portion, not the header.
and a status payload portion including at least one missing packet identifier comprising a transmit packet identifier for said missing data packet;
In TS 25.322, other SUFIs (which would mean data payload portion) may include a list of SNs of packets not received. TS 25.322 at 9.2.2.11.4 “"Sequence Number" of AMD PDU, which was not correctly received”.
and receiving at least one […]segmented data packet from said sending unit.
TS 25.322 discloses receiving a segmented data packet from the sending unit. TS 25.322 at Sec. 4.2.1.3.1 and Sec. 11.1.3.
TS 25.322 fails to disclose that the NACK field includes a beginning and ending setoff value as well as receiving a re-segmented data packet.
TS 36.322 V1 discloses an analogous art, namely a system and method for providing status control PDUs to apprise a sending unit of failed PDU reception in an RLC system like that of TS 25.322. TS 36.322 V1 at Sec. 1 and Sec. 4.2.1 as well as Sec. 4.2.1.3.3, 5.2.1, and 6.1.2. TS 36.322 further states that a status PDU may include information on the first and last bytes of an AMD PDU segment within the original AMD PDU. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.7 (segment offset field). This reads a beginning and ending setoff value. See also Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 5.2.1-5.2.3 which mentions a PDU segment to be retransmitted when notified of loss by a status PDU. Lastly, TS 36.322 discloses that when a PDU segment to be retransmitted does not fit a single return PDU it can be re-segmented. Id. at Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 6.1.1.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in the manner taught by TS 36.322 V1, namely as to the use of setoff values as well as re-segmented PDUs. TS 25.322 discloses segmenting PDUs and thus segments of a PDU may be not received. TS 36.322 V1 merely discloses the means for identifying these segments. Further, TS 36.322 V1 states that resending a segment may or may not include re-segmentation. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
TS 25.322 as modified by TS 36.322 V1 still fails to disclose a timer for determining the packet is lost.
Hu discloses an analogous art, namely sending and receiving RLC PDUs between a sending unit and a receiving unit, including means for producing and sending a status packet from the receiver to the sender when it is determined that a packet was not received. Hu at 5/5-39. Hu states that, upon initially determining a packet may be missing by noting a lack of the packet’s in the receiving of multiple packets, a timer is set and, upon expiration of said timer, the deeming of the packet as missing is made complete. Id. at col. 5/40-47.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 in the manner taught by Hu, namely as to the use of a timer. TS 25.322 discloses a number of timers for use in determining the sending of a Status PDU, and Hu merely discloses the use of such a timer in accurately deeming a packet as lost. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Lastly, while the combination of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and Hu above discloses a SN identifier of a received packet in a payload portion instead of a header portion as claimed, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the claimed SN in a header portion of the status control packet. First off, there is no critical teaching in the instant ‘812 Patent as to this particular SN existing in a header as opposed to a payload portion except inasmuch as it is generally disclosed in the provisional ‘893 document; the non-provisional patent itself only mentions a header with a SN corresponding to a SN anticipated to be received. Further, as the requirement for a retransmit packet responsive to the status control packet has been removed from the claim at issue, the actual structure and information contained in the status control packet is not disclosed as having any actual function at all; as there is no actual processing of the information in the packet, any arrangement of the data therein makes no difference whatsoever as to the claimed method which, again, does not use the status control packet or any information therein for any purpose. Thus even if the information in the status control packet or the arrangement thereof were given patentable weight here, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found rearranging the packet of the combined invention of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 to have been obvious as merely an example of rearrangement of parts, an obvious design choice. MPEP § 2144.04 VI. C., citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See further In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
As to claim 47, TS 25.322 discloses:
A digital communications system for delivering one or more data blocks, the system comprising at least one transmit/receive unit (TRU), said TRU comprising:
TS 25.322 discloses a digital communication system and method for transmitting data. TS 25.322 at Sec. 4.2. TS 25.322 discloses a UE which is a transmit/receive unit which receives data packets. Id. at Secs. 1, 4.2.1 “[a] Sender or a Receiver can reside at either the UE or the UTRAN”, and 6.1.
a storage element for receiving a plurality of transmit data packets and at least one […]segmented data packet from a sending unit;
TS 25.322 discloses that the UE may receive a plurality of transmit data packets, each comprising a SN specifying a sequence of transmission. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4. TS 25.322 further discloses receiving a segmented data packet from the sending unit. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.1 and Sec. 11.1.3. TS 25.322 discloses that the UE has a memory for receiving the data packets. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.2.
and a processing element communicatively coupled to said storage element, said processing element for configured for:
TS 25.322 discloses a process below performed by the UE, and discloses that the UE may “process” the data. TS 25.322 at Sec. 11.3.4.9.
recognizing a failure to receive at least one other transmit data packet (missing data packet) from said sending unit,
TS 25.322 discloses recognizing a failure to receive at least one data packet. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.7.2 “[i]f the Receiver detects one or several missing AMD PDUs it shall trigger the transmission of a status report to the Sender”
and configuring at least one status control packet for transmission to said sending unit,
TS 25.322 discloses configuring a status control packet to be transmitted back to the sender when failure to receive is determined. TS 25.322 at Secs 9.7.2, 11.3.4.9, and 11.5.2. Transmission of the status control packet is further disclosed in Sec. 4.2.1.3.2 “The Receiver acknowledges successful reception or requests retransmission of the missing AMD PDUs by sending one or more STATUS PDUs to the AM RLC peer entity, through its transmitting side”.
said status control packet comprising a header portion including a packet identifier indicative of a data packet received from said sending unit
TS 25.322 discloses that the AMD PDU includes a header and a data section. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4. In the AMD STATUS PDU, the data section includes SUFIs, one of which may be an ACK SUFI which identifies by a SN the reception of packets up to that SN i.e. a packet identifier indicative of a packet received. Id. at Sec. 9.2.2.11.2. However this is disclosed as being in the end of the data portion, not the header.
and a status payload portion including a missing packet identifier, […].
In TS 25.322, other SUFIs (which would mean data payload portion) may include a list of SNs of packets not received. TS 25.322 at 9.2.2.11.4 “"Sequence Number" of AMD PDU, which was not correctly received”.
TS 25.322 fails to disclose that the payload includes a beginning and ending setoff value as well as receiving a re-segmented data packet.
TS 36.322 V1 discloses an analogous art, namely a system and method for providing status control PDUs to apprise a sending unit of failed PDU reception in an RLC system like that of TS 25.322. TS 36.322 V1 at Sec. 1 and Sec. 4.2.1 as well as Sec. 4.2.1.3.3, 5.2.1, and 6.1.2. TS 36.322 further states that a status PDU may include information on the first and last bytes of an AMD PDU segment within the original AMD PDU. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.7 (segment offset field). This reads a beginning and ending setoff value. See also Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 5.2.1-5.2.3 which mentions a PDU segment to be retransmitted when notified of loss by a status PDU. Lastly, TS 36.322 discloses that when a PDU segment to be retransmitted does not fit a single return PDU it can be re-segmented. Id. at Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 6.1.1.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in the manner taught by TS 36.322 V1, namely as to the use of setoff values as well as re-segmented PDUs. TS 25.322 discloses segmenting PDUs and thus segments of a PDU may be not received. TS 36.322 V1 merely discloses the means for identifying these segments. Further, TS 36.322 V1 states that resending a segment may or may not include re-segmentation. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
TS 25.322 as modified by TS 36.322 V1 still fails to specify a processor for performing the claimed functions of recognizing and configuring.
Hu discloses an analogous art, namely sending and receiving RLC PDUs between a sending unit and a receiving unit, including means for producing and sending a status packet from the receiver to the sender when it is determined that a packet was not received. Hu at 5/5-39. Hu states that the determining that a packet is missing and the subsequent actions as to reporting such are performed by a processor device which may comprise an ASIC which is a special-purpose computer. Id. at 4/11-24 and 8/47-67.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 in the manner taught by Hu, namely as to the use of a processor. TS 25.322 discloses a number of processes for use in a UE to determine the sending of a Status PDU. TS 25.322, in turn, incorporates by reference TS 25.301. TS 25.322 at Secs. 2 and 5. TS 25.301 states that the units involved may comprise a processor. TS 25.301 at Sec. 5.6.7. One of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that a processor device would have been a necessary part of the UE of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 in order to process the packets from the memory and produce a status control packet. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention further would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Lastly, while the combination of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and Hu above discloses a SN identifier of a received packet in a payload portion instead of a header portion as claimed, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the claimed SN in a header portion of the status control packet. First off, there is no critical teaching in the instant ‘812 Patent as to this particular SN existing in a header as opposed to a payload portion except inasmuch as it is generally disclosed in the provisional ‘893 document; the non-provisional patent itself only mentions a header with a SN corresponding to a SN anticipated to be received. Further, as the requirement for a retransmit packet responsive to the status control packet has been removed from the claim at issue, the actual structure and information contained in the status control packet is not disclosed as having any actual function at all; as there is no actual processing of the information in the packet, any arrangement of the data therein makes no difference whatsoever as to the claimed method which, again, does not use the status control packet or any information therein for any purpose. Thus even if the information in the status control packet or the arrangement thereof were given patentable weight here, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found rearranging the packet of the combined invention of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 to have been obvious as merely an example of rearrangement of parts, an obvious design choice. MPEP § 2144.04 VI. C., citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See further In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Further as to claim 48:
The system of claim 47, further comprising a transceiver communicatively coupled to at least said processing element, said transceiver comprising an optical communications interface, a wireless communications interface, or a wire line communications interface.
TS 25.322 discloses a UE which is a transmitter/receiver unit (reads transceiver) which sends and receives data packets. Id. at Secs. 1, 4.2.1 “[t]he Sender is the transmitter of AMD PDUs and the Receiver is the receiver of AMD PDUs. A Sender or a Receiver can reside at either the UE or the UTRAN”, and 6.1. Further, TS 25.322 and TS 36.322 both disclose a wireless interface.
Further as to claim 49:
The system of claim 47, wherein said status control packet further comprises additional bits in at least one of said header portion and said status payload portion for increasing a total bit count for said status control packet to a whole number of bytes.
TS 25.322 discloses padding the packet, which would be for a whole number of bytes. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.2.10 and 9.2.1.5 “padding shall be included to match one of the PDU sizes used by the logical channel on which the control PDUs are sent. The length of the STATUS PDU shall be a multiple of 8 bits.”
As to claim 50, TS 25.322 discloses:
A digital communications system for delivering one or more data blocks, the system comprising at least one transmit/receive unit (TRU), said TRU comprising:
TS 25.322 discloses a digital communication system and method for transmitting data. TS 25.322 at Sec. 4.2. TS 25.322 discloses a UE which is a transmit/receive unit which receives data packets. Id. at Secs. 1, 4.2.1 “[a] Sender or a Receiver can reside at either the UE or the UTRAN”, and 6.1.
a storage element for receiving a plurality of transmit data packets and at least one […]segmented data packet from a sending unit;
TS 25.322 discloses that the UE may receive a plurality of transmit data packets, each comprising a SN specifying a sequence of transmission. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4. TS 25.322 further discloses receiving a segmented data packet from the sending unit. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.1 and Sec. 11.1.3. TS 25.322 discloses that the UE has a memory for receiving the data packets. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.2.
and a processing element communicatively coupled to said storage element, said processing element for configured for:
TS 25.322 discloses a process below performed by the UE, and discloses that the UE may “process” the data. TS 25.322 at Sec. 11.3.4.9.
extracting said transmit packet identifier associated with each of said plurality of transmit data packets;
identifying a missing data identifier based on extracting; and
[…] specifying said one of said transmit data packets associated with said missing packet identifier as a missing data packet; and
TS 25.322 discloses recognizing a failure to receive at least one data packet. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.7.2 “[i]f the Receiver detects one or several missing AMD PDUs it shall trigger the transmission of a status report to the Sender”. TS 25.322 further discloses that SNs are “checked” in the process of determining a lost packet, which means the SN is inherently extracted in order to check it. Id. at Secs. 5 and 6 “sequence number check”. This specifies the missing packet as lost. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.2 “The Receiver acknowledges successful reception or requests retransmission of the missing AMD PDUs by sending one or more STATUS PDUs to the AM RLC peer entity, through its transmitting side”.
configuring at least one status control packet for transmission to said sending unit,
TS 25.322 discloses configuring a status control packet to be transmitted back to the sender when failure to receive is determined. TS 25.322 at Secs 9.7.2, 11.3.4.9, and 11.5.2. Transmission of the status control packet is further disclosed in Sec. 4.2.1.3.2 “The Receiver acknowledges successful reception or requests retransmission of the missing AMD PDUs by sending one or more STATUS PDUs to the AM RLC peer entity, through its transmitting side”.
said status control packet comprising a header portion including a packet identifier indicative of a data packet received from said sending unit
TS 25.322 discloses that the AMD PDU includes a header and a data section. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4. In the AMD STATUS PDU, the data section includes SUFIs, one of which may be an ACK SUFI which identifies by a SN the reception of packets up to that SN i.e. a packet identifier indicative of a packet received. Id. at Sec. 9.2.2.11.2. However this is disclosed as being in the end of the data portion, not the header.
and a status payload portion including a missing packet identifier […].
In TS 25.322, other SUFIs (which would mean data payload portion) may include a list of SNs of packets not received. TS 25.322 at 9.2.2.11.4 “"Sequence Number" of AMD PDU, which was not correctly received”.
TS 25.322 fails to disclose that the NACK field includes a beginning and ending setoff value as well as receiving a re-segmented data packet.
TS 36.322 V1 discloses an analogous art, namely a system and method for providing status control PDUs to apprise a sending unit of failed PDU reception in an RLC system like that of TS 25.322. TS 36.322 V1 at Sec. 1 and Sec. 4.2.1 as well as Sec. 4.2.1.3.3, 5.2.1, and 6.1.2. TS 36.322 further states that a status PDU may include information on the first and last bytes of an AMD PDU segment within the original AMD PDU. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.7 (segment offset field). This reads a beginning and ending setoff value. See also Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 5.2.1-5.2.3 which mentions a PDU segment to be retransmitted when notified of loss by a status PDU. Lastly, TS 36.322 discloses that when a PDU segment to be retransmitted does not fit a single return PDU it can be re-segmented. Id. at Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 6.1.1.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in the manner taught by TS 36.322 V1, namely as to the use of setoff values as well as re-segmented PDUs. TS 25.322 discloses segmenting PDUs and thus segments of a PDU may be not received. TS 36.322 V1 merely discloses the means for identifying these segments. Further, TS 36.322 V1 states that resending a segment may or may not include re-segmentation. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
TS 25.322 as modified by TS 36.322 V1 still fails to specify a processor for performing the claimed functions of recognizing and configuring as well as a timer for determining the packet is lost.
Hu discloses an analogous art, namely sending and receiving RLC PDUs between a sending unit and a receiving unit, including means for producing and sending a status packet from the receiver to the sender when it is determined that a packet was not received. Hu at 5/5-39. Hu states that, upon initially determining a packet may be missing by noting a lack of the packet’s in the receiving of multiple packets, a timer is set and, upon expiration of said timer, the deeming of the packet as missing is made complete. Id. at col. 5/40-47. Hu states that the determining that a packet is missing and the subsequent actions as to reporting such are performed by a processor device which may comprise an ASIC which is a special-purpose computer. Id. at 4/11-24 and 8/47-67.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 in the manner taught by Hu, namely as to the use of a processor and a timer. TS 25.322 discloses a number of processes for use in a UE to determine the sending of a Status PDU. TS 25.322, in turn, incorporates by reference TS 25.301. TS 25.322 at Secs. 2 and 5. TS 25.301 states that the units involved may comprise a processor. TS 25.301 at Sec. 5.6.7. TS 25.322 discloses a number of timers for use in determining the sending of a Status PDU, and Hu merely discloses the use of such a timer in accurately deeming a packet as lost. One of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that a processor device would have been a necessary part of the UE of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 in order to process the packets from the memory and produce a status control packet. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention further would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Lastly, while the combination of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and Hu above discloses a SN identifier of a received packet in a payload portion instead of a header portion as claimed, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the claimed SN in a header portion of the status control packet. First off, there is no critical teaching in the instant ‘812 Patent as to this particular SN existing in a header as opposed to a payload portion except inasmuch as it is generally disclosed in the provisional ‘893 document; the non-provisional patent itself only mentions a header with a SN corresponding to a SN anticipated to be received. Further, as the requirement for a retransmit packet responsive to the status control packet has been removed from the claim at issue, the actual structure and information contained in the status control packet is not disclosed as having any actual function at all; as there is no actual processing of the information in the packet, any arrangement of the data therein makes no difference whatsoever as to the claimed method which, again, does not use the status control packet or any information therein for any purpose. Thus even if the information in the status control packet or the arrangement thereof were given patentable weight here, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found rearranging the packet of the combined invention of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 to have been obvious as merely an example of rearrangement of parts, an obvious design choice. MPEP § 2144.04 VI. C., citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See further In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Further as to claim 51:
The system of claim 47, wherein said transmit packet identifier comprises a transmit sequence number (SN), said transmit SN specifying an initial sequence of transmission of transmit data packets from said sending unit.
TS 25.322 discloses a receiver receiving data packets from a sending unit, each comprising a SN number specifying a sequence of transmission. This SN is the transmit packet identifier. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4.
Further as to claim 52:
The system of claim 51, wherein each of said re-segmented data packets further comprises a retransmit SN said retransmit SN specifying said transmit SN associated with a data payload in each of said retransmit data packets.
TS 25.322 discloses that the data packet sent may be a retransmit packet comprising a SN associated with its data payload. TS 25.322 at Secs. 11.3.2. and 11.3.2.1.
Further as to claim 53:
The system of claim 52, wherein at least one of said re- segmented data packets further comprises a retransmit segment identifier, and said retransmit segment identifier specifies a location in said data payload of a segment in said re-segmented data packet associated with a missing packet identifier.
TS 25.322 discloses that the data packet sent may be a retransmit packet comprising a SN associated with its data payload. TS 25.322 at Secs. 11.3.2. and 11.3.2.1. Further, TS 25.322 further discloses that the retransmitted packet may include length indicators as to the original data, identifying segments. TS 25.322 at Secs. 9.2.2.8 and 11.3.2.1. Lastly, TS 36.322 further discloses setoff values in the AMD PDU (retransmit packet), which identifies a segment of data associated with the missing packet identifier. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.5.
Further as to claim 55:
The system of claim 50, wherein said header portion for said status control packet comprises one or more bits to create a byte-complete packet, said byte-complete packet is an integer number of octets in length.
TS 25.322 discloses padding the packet, which would be for a whole number of bytes. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.2.10 and 9.2.1.5 “padding shall be included to match one of the PDU sizes used by the logical channel on which the control PDUs are sent. The length of the STATUS PDU shall be a multiple of 8 bits.”.
Further as to claim 56:
The system of claim 51, wherein said status payload portion comprises one or more negative acknowledgement (NACK) fields, each of said NACK fields including one of said missing packet identifiers.
TS 25.322 discloses that the payload section may include a LIST section noted above, which reads a negative ack field as it is a negative acknowledgement of various packets.
As to claim 58, TS 25.322 discloses:
A digital communications system for delivering one or more data blocks, the system comprising at least one receiving unit, said receiving unit comprising:
TS 25.322 discloses a digital communication system and method for transmitting data. TS 25.322 at Sec. 4.2. TS 25.322 discloses a UE which is a transmit/receive unit which receives data packets. Id. at Secs. 1, 4.2.1 “[a] Sender or a Receiver can reside at either the UE or the UTRAN”, and 6.1.
a storage element for receiving a plurality of transmit data packets and at least one […]segmented data packet from a sending unit;
TS 25.322 discloses that the UE may receive a plurality of transmit data packets, each comprising a SN specifying a sequence of transmission. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4. TS 25.322 further discloses receiving a segmented data packet from the sending unit. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.1 and Sec. 11.1.3. TS 25.322 discloses that the UE has a memory for receiving the data packets. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.2.
and a processing element communicatively coupled to said storage element, said processing element configured for:
TS 25.322 discloses a process below performed by the UE, and discloses that the UE may “process” the data. TS 25.322 at Sec. 11.3.4.9.
recognizing a failure to receive at least one other transmit data packet (missing data packet) from said sending unit,
TS 25.322 discloses recognizing a failure to receive at least one data packet. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.7.2 “[i]f the Receiver detects one or several missing AMD PDUs it shall trigger the transmission of a status report to the Sender”
and configuring at least a status control packet for transmission to said sending unit,
TS 25.322 discloses configuring a status control packet to be transmitted back to the sender when failure to receive is determined. TS 25.322 at Secs 9.7.2, 11.3.4.9, and 11.5.2. Transmission of the status control packet is further disclosed in Sec. 4.2.1.3.2 “The Receiver acknowledges successful reception or requests retransmission of the missing AMD PDUs by sending one or more STATUS PDUs to the AM RLC peer entity, through its transmitting side”.
said status control packet comprising a header portion including a packet identifier indicative of a data packet received from said sending unit,
TS 25.322 discloses that the AMD PDU includes a header and a data section. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4. In the AMD STATUS PDU, the data section includes SUFIs, one of which may be an ACK SUFI which identifies by a SN the reception of packets up to that SN i.e. a packet identifier indicative of a packet received. Id. at Sec. 9.2.2.11.2. However this is disclosed as being in the end of the data portion, not the header.
a status payload portion including a missing data packet identifier […].
In TS 25.322, other SUFIs (which would mean data payload portion) may include a list of SNs of packets not received. TS 25.322 at 9.2.2.11.4 “"Sequence Number" of AMD PDU, which was not correctly received”.
said status control packet including additional bits in at least one of said header portion and said status payload portion for increasing a total bit count for said status control packet to a whole number of bytes.
TS 25.322 discloses padding the packet, which would be for a whole number of bytes. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.2.10 and 9.2.1.5 “padding shall be included to match one of the PDU sizes used by the logical channel on which the control PDUs are sent. The length of the STATUS PDU shall be a multiple of 8 bits.”.
TS 25.322 fails to disclose that the payload includes a beginning and ending setoff value as well as receiving a re-segmented data packet.
TS 36.322 V1 discloses an analogous art, namely a system and method for providing status control PDUs to apprise a sending unit of failed PDU reception in an RLC system like that of TS 25.322. TS 36.322 V1 at Sec. 1 and Sec. 4.2.1 as well as Sec. 4.2.1.3.3, 5.2.1, and 6.1.2. TS 36.322 further states that a status PDU may include information on the first and last bytes of an AMD PDU segment within the original AMD PDU. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.7 (segment offset field). This reads a beginning and ending setoff value. See also Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 5.2.1-5.2.3 which mentions a PDU segment to be retransmitted when notified of loss by a status PDU. Lastly, TS 36.322 discloses that when a PDU segment to be retransmitted does not fit a single return PDU it can be re-segmented. Id. at Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 6.1.1.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in the manner taught by TS 36.322 V1, namely as to the use of setoff values as well as re-segmented PDUs. TS 25.322 discloses segmenting PDUs and thus segments of a PDU may be not received. TS 36.322 V1 merely discloses the means for identifying these segments. Further, TS 36.322 V1 states that resending a segment may or may not include re-segmentation. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
TS 25.322 as modified by TS 36.322 V1 still fails to specify a processor for performing the claimed functions of recognizing and configuring.
Hu discloses an analogous art, namely sending and receiving RLC PDUs between a sending unit and a receiving unit, including means for producing and sending a status packet from the receiver to the sender when it is determined that a packet was not received. Hu at 5/5-39. Hu states that the determining that a packet is missing and the subsequent actions as to reporting such are performed by a processor device which may comprise an ASIC which is a special-purpose computer. Id. at 4/11-24 and 8/47-67.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 in the manner taught by Hu, namely as to the use of a processor. TS 25.322 discloses a number of processes for use in a UE to determine the sending of a Status PDU. TS 25.322, in turn, incorporates by reference TS 25.301. TS 25.322 at Secs. 2 and 5. TS 25.301 states that the units involved may comprise a processor. TS 25.301 at Sec. 5.6.7. One of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that a processor device would have been a necessary part of the UE of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 in order to process the packets from the memory and produce a status control packet. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention further would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Lastly, while the combination of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and Hu above discloses a SN identifier of a received packet in a payload portion instead of a header portion as claimed, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the claimed SN in a header portion of the status control packet. First off, there is no critical teaching in the instant ‘812 Patent as to this particular SN existing in a header as opposed to a payload portion except inasmuch as it is generally disclosed in the provisional ‘893 document; the non-provisional patent itself only mentions a header with a SN corresponding to a SN anticipated to be received. Further, as the requirement for a retransmit packet responsive to the status control packet has been removed from the claim at issue, the actual structure and information contained in the status control packet is not disclosed as having any actual function at all; as there is no actual processing of the information in the packet, any arrangement of the data therein makes no difference whatsoever as to the claimed method which, again, does not use the status control packet or any information therein for any purpose. Thus even if the information in the status control packet or the arrangement thereof were given patentable weight here, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found rearranging the packet of the combined invention of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 to have been obvious as merely an example of rearrangement of parts, an obvious design choice. MPEP § 2144.04 VI. C., citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See further In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Further as to claim 59:
The system of claim 58, wherein said transmit packet identifier comprises a transmit sequence number (SN), said transmit SN specifying an initial sequence of transmission of transmit data packets from said sending unit.
TS 25.322 discloses a receiver receiving data packets from a sending unit, each comprising a SN number specifying a sequence of transmission. This SN is the transmit packet identifier. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4.
Further as to claim 60:
The system of claim 58, wherein said status payload portion comprises one or more negative acknowledgement (NACK) fields, each of said NACK fields including one of said missing packet identifiers.
TS 25.322 discloses that the payload section may include a LIST section noted above, which reads a negative ack field as it is a negative acknowledgement of various packets.
As to claim 74, TS 25.322 discloses:
A digital communications system comprising:
TS 25.322 discloses a digital communication system and method for transmitting data. TS 25.322 at Sec. 4.2.
a receiver configured to receive RLC PDUs, […]segmented RLC PDUs, retransmitted RLC PDUs, and retransmitted […]segmented RLC PDUs;
TS 25.322 discloses a receiver receiving PDUs in an RLC system from sending unit., TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.2.1.4. This includes receiving a segmented data packet from the sending unit. TS 25.322 at Sec. 4.2.1.3.1 and Sec. 11.1.3. TS 25.322 further discloses receiving retransmitted PDUs whose reception failure is noted in the STATUS PDU, including segmented ones. Id. at Secs. 11.3.1-11.3.2.
a processing element configured to recognize a failure to receive a […]segmented RLC PDU
TS 25.322 discloses recognizing a failure to receive at least one PDU, which would include the above segmented PDU. TS 25.322 at Sec. 9.7.2 “[i]f the Receiver detects one or several missing AMD PDUs it shall trigger the transmission of a status report to the Sender”. TS 25.322 discloses a process below performed by the UE, and discloses that the UE may “process” the data. TS 25.322 at Sec. 11.3.4.9.
and to generate a status packet comprising a sequence number for the […]segmented RLC PDU […];
TS 25.322 discloses configuring a status control packet to be transmitted back to the sender when failure to receive is determined. TS 25.322 at Secs 9.7.2, 11.3.4.9, and 11.5.2. Such is an AMD STATUS PDU, the data section including SUFIs, one of which may be an ACK SUFI which identifies by a SN the reception of packets up to that SN i.e. a packet identifier indicative of a packet received. TS 25.322 at Secs. 9.2.2.11.2-9.2.2.11.4.
a transceiver element for transmitting the status packet.
TS 25.322 discloses transmitting the status control packet back to the sender. TS 25.322 at Sec 9.4 “when the transmitter receives a STATUS PDU” and at Sec. 9.7.2 “The Receiver transmits status reports to the Sender” as well as Sec. 4.2.1.3.2 “The Receiver acknowledges successful reception or requests retransmission of the missing AMD PDUs by sending one or more STATUS PDUs to the AM RLC peer entity, through its transmitting side”. TS 25.322 discloses a UE which is a transmitter/receiver unit (reads transceiver) which sends and receives data packets. Id. at Secs. 1, 4.2.1 “[t]he Sender is the transmitter of AMD PDUs and the Receiver is the receiver of AMD PDUs. A Sender or a Receiver can reside at either the UE or the UTRAN”, and 6.1.
TS 25.322 fails to disclose that the return packet includes a beginning and ending setoff value as well as receiving a re-segmented data packet.
TS 36.322 V1 discloses an analogous art, namely a system and method for providing status control PDUs to apprise a sending unit of failed PDU reception in an RLC system like that of TS 25.322. TS 36.322 V1 at Sec. 1 and Sec. 4.2.1 as well as Sec. 4.2.1.3.3, 5.2.1, and 6.1.2. TS 36.322 further states that a status PDU may include information on the first and last bytes of an AMD PDU segment within the original AMD PDU. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.7 (segment offset field). This reads a beginning and ending setoff value. See also Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 5.2.1-5.2.3 which mentions a PDU segment to be retransmitted when notified of loss by a status PDU. Lastly, TS 36.322 discloses that when a PDU segment to be retransmitted does not fit a single return PDU it can be re-segmented. Id. at Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 6.1.1.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in the manner taught by TS 36.322 V1, namely as to the use of setoff values as well as re-segmented PDUs. TS 25.322 discloses segmenting PDUs and thus segments of a PDU may be not received. TS 36.322 V1 merely discloses the means for identifying these segments. Further, TS 36.322 V1 states that resending a segment may or may not include re-segmentation. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
TS 25.322 as modified by TS 36.322 V1 still fails to specify a processor for performing the claimed functions of recognizing and generating.
Hu discloses an analogous art, namely sending and receiving RLC PDUs between a sending unit and a receiving unit, including means for producing and sending a status packet from the receiver to the sender when it is determined that a packet was not received. Hu at 5/5-39. Hu states that the determining that a packet is missing and the subsequent actions as to reporting such are performed by a processor device which may comprise an ASIC which is a special-purpose computer. Id. at 4/11-24 and 8/47-67.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 in the manner taught by Hu, namely as to the use of a processor. TS 25.322 discloses a number of processes for use in a UE to determine the sending of a Status PDU. TS 25.322, in turn, incorporates by reference TS 25.301. TS 25.322 at Secs. 2 and 5. TS 25.301 states that the units involved may comprise a processor. TS 25.301 at Sec. 5.6.7. One of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that a processor device would have been a necessary part of the UE of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 in order to process the packets from the memory and produce a status control packet. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention further would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 61-63 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and US Pat 7,957,389 to Hu et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of “Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) Radio Resource Control (RRC); Protocol specification”, )”, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) TS 36.331 v8.2.0 (2008-05) (hereinafter “TS 36.331”), of record. This is an intervening art rejection3.
As to claim 61:
The method of claim 4, wherein said recognizing step waits 25 ms to 100 ms before recognizing said failure.
While disclosing the invention of claim 4 above, TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and Hu fails to disclose specifics as to the amount of time the timer waits before recognizing the failure to receive a packet.
TS 36.331 discloses an analogous art, namely the 3GPP system disclosed in TS 36.322, and similar to that disclosed in TS 25.322. TS 36.331 further discloses numerous variables used in the system, including timers such as those used in determining loss of packet determination. TS 36.331 at 98-100. These timers can include values between 10 and 100ms. Id.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu in such a manner, namely as to the length of the timer used. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the timer of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu would need to have a set value and would be led to TS 36.331 which merely teaches a number of different values, the choice of which would have been a routine engineering decision. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As to claim 62:
The method of claim 4, wherein said recognizing step waits 10 ms to 35 ms before recognizing said failure.
While disclosing the invention of claim 4 above, TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and Hu fails to disclose specifics as to the amount of time the timer waits before recognizing the failure to receive a packet.
TS 36.331 discloses an analogous art, namely the 3GPP system disclosed in TS 36.322, and similar to that disclosed in TS 25.322. TS 36.331 further discloses numerous variables used in the system, including timers such as those used in determining loss of packet determination. TS 36.331 at 98-100. These timers can include values between 10 and 100ms. Id.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu in such a manner, namely as to the length of the timer used. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the timer of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu would need to have a set value and would be led to TS 36.331 which merely teaches a number of different values, the choice of which would have been a routine engineering decision. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As to claim 63:
The method of claim 4, wherein said recognizing step waits 25 ms to 35 ms before recognizing said failure.
While disclosing the invention of claim 4 above, TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and Hu fails to disclose specifics as to the amount of time the timer waits before recognizing the failure to receive a packet.
TS 36.331 discloses an analogous art, namely the 3GPP system disclosed in TS 36.322, and similar to that disclosed in TS 25.322. TS 36.331 further discloses numerous variables used in the system, including timers such as those used in determining loss of packet determination. TS 36.331 at 98-100. These timers can include values between 10 and 100ms. Id.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu in such a manner, namely as to the length of the timer used. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the timer of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu would need to have a set value and would be led to TS 36.331 which merely teaches a number of different values, the choice of which would have been a routine engineering decision. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 64-66 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and US Pat 7,957,389 to Hu et al. as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of TS 36.331. This is an intervening art rejection4.
As to claim 64:
The system of claim 14, said identifying includes waiting 25 ms to 100 ms before recognizing said failure.
While disclosing the invention of claim 4 above, TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and Hu fails to disclose specifics as to the amount of time the timer waits before recognizing the failure to receive a packet.
TS 36.331 discloses an analogous art, namely the 3GPP system disclosed in TS 36.322, and similar to that disclosed in TS 25.322. TS 36.331 further discloses numerous variables used in the system, including timers such as those used in determining loss of packet determination. TS 36.331 at 98-100. These timers can include values between 10 and 100ms. Id.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu in such a manner, namely as to the length of the timer used. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the timer of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu would need to have a set value and would be led to TS 36.331 which merely teaches a number of different values, the choice of which would have been a routine engineering decision. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As to claim 65:
The system of claim 14, said identifying includes waiting 10 ms to 35 ms before recognizing said failure.
While disclosing the invention of claim 4 above, TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and Hu fails to disclose specifics as to the amount of time the timer waits before recognizing the failure to receive a packet.
TS 36.331 discloses an analogous art, namely the 3GPP system disclosed in TS 36.322, and similar to that disclosed in TS 25.322. TS 36.331 further discloses numerous variables used in the system, including timers such as those used in determining loss of packet determination. TS 36.331 at 98-100. These timers can include values between 10 and 100ms. Id.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu in such a manner, namely as to the length of the timer used. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the timer of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu would need to have a set value and would be led to TS 36.331 which merely teaches a number of different values, the choice of which would have been a routine engineering decision. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As to claim 66:
The system of claim 14, said identifying includes waiting 25 ms to 35 ms before recognizing said failure.
While disclosing the invention of claim 4 above, TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and Hu fails to disclose specifics as to the amount of time the timer waits before recognizing the failure to receive a packet.
TS 36.331 discloses an analogous art, namely the 3GPP system disclosed in TS 36.322, and similar to that disclosed in TS 25.322. TS 36.331 further discloses numerous variables used in the system, including timers such as those used in determining loss of packet determination. TS 36.331 at 98-100. These timers can include values between 10 and 100ms. Id.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu in such a manner, namely as to the length of the timer used. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the timer of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu would need to have a set value and would be led to TS 36.331 which merely teaches a number of different values, the choice of which would have been a routine engineering decision. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 67-69 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and US Pat 7,957,389 to Hu et al. as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of TS 36.331. This is an intervening art rejection5.
As to claim 67:
The method of claim 39, said identifying includes waiting 25 ms to 100 ms before recognizing said failure.
While disclosing the invention of claim 4 above, TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and Hu fails to disclose specifics as to the amount of time the timer waits before recognizing the failure to receive a packet.
TS 36.331 discloses an analogous art, namely the 3GPP system disclosed in TS 36.322, and similar to that disclosed in TS 25.322. TS 36.331 further discloses numerous variables used in the system, including timers such as those used in determining loss of packet determination. TS 36.331 at 98-100. These timers can include values between 10 and 100ms. Id.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu in such a manner, namely as to the length of the timer used. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the timer of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu would need to have a set value and would be led to TS 36.331 which merely teaches a number of different values, the choice of which would have been a routine engineering decision. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As to claim 68:
The method of claim 39, said identifying includes waiting 10 ms to 35 ms before recognizing said failure.
While disclosing the invention of claim 4 above, TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and Hu fails to disclose specifics as to the amount of time the timer waits before recognizing the failure to receive a packet.
TS 36.331 discloses an analogous art, namely the 3GPP system disclosed in TS 36.322, and similar to that disclosed in TS 25.322. TS 36.331 further discloses numerous variables used in the system, including timers such as those used in determining loss of packet determination. TS 36.331 at 98-100. These timers can include values between 10 and 100ms. Id.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu in such a manner, namely as to the length of the timer used. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the timer of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu would need to have a set value and would be led to TS 36.331 which merely teaches a number of different values, the choice of which would have been a routine engineering decision. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As to claim 69:
The method of claim 39, said identifying includes waiting 25 ms to 35 ms before recognizing said failure.
While disclosing the invention of claim 4 above, TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and Hu fails to disclose specifics as to the amount of time the timer waits before recognizing the failure to receive a packet.
TS 36.331 discloses an analogous art, namely the 3GPP system disclosed in TS 36.322, and similar to that disclosed in TS 25.322. TS 36.331 further discloses numerous variables used in the system, including timers such as those used in determining loss of packet determination. TS 36.331 at 98-100. These timers can include values between 10 and 100ms. Id.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu in such a manner, namely as to the length of the timer used. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the timer of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu would need to have a set value and would be led to TS 36.331 which merely teaches a number of different values, the choice of which would have been a routine engineering decision. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 70-72 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and US Pat 7,957,389 to Hu et al. as applied to claim 50 above, and further in view of TS 36.331. This is an intervening art rejection6.
As to claim 70:
The system of claim 50, said identifying includes waiting 25 ms to 100 ms before recognizing said failure.
While disclosing the invention of claim 4 above, TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and Hu fails to disclose specifics as to the amount of time the timer waits before recognizing the failure to receive a packet.
TS 36.331 discloses an analogous art, namely the 3GPP system disclosed in TS 36.322, and similar to that disclosed in TS 25.322. TS 36.331 further discloses numerous variables used in the system, including timers such as those used in determining loss of packet determination. TS 36.331 at 98-100. These timers can include values between 10 and 100ms. Id.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu in such a manner, namely as to the length of the timer used. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the timer of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu would need to have a set value and would be led to TS 36.331 which merely teaches a number of different values, the choice of which would have been a routine engineering decision. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As to claim 71:
The system of claim 50, said identifying includes waiting 10 ms to 35 ms before recognizing said failure.
While disclosing the invention of claim 4 above, TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and Hu fails to disclose specifics as to the amount of time the timer waits before recognizing the failure to receive a packet.
TS 36.331 discloses an analogous art, namely the 3GPP system disclosed in TS 36.322, and similar to that disclosed in TS 25.322. TS 36.331 further discloses numerous variables used in the system, including timers such as those used in determining loss of packet determination. TS 36.331 at 98-100. These timers can include values between 10 and 100ms. Id.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu in such a manner, namely as to the length of the timer used. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the timer of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu would need to have a set value and would be led to TS 36.331 which merely teaches a number of different values, the choice of which would have been a routine engineering decision. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As to claim 72:
The system of claim 50, said identifying includes waiting 25 ms to 35 ms before recognizing said failure.
While disclosing the invention of claim 4 above, TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 V1 and Hu fails to disclose specifics as to the amount of time the timer waits before recognizing the failure to receive a packet.
TS 36.331 discloses an analogous art, namely the 3GPP system disclosed in TS 36.322, and similar to that disclosed in TS 25.322. TS 36.331 further discloses numerous variables used in the system, including timers such as those used in determining loss of packet determination. TS 36.331 at 98-100. These timers can include values between 10 and 100ms. Id.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu in such a manner, namely as to the length of the timer used. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the timer of TS 25.322 in view of TS 36.322 and Hu would need to have a set value and would be led to TS 36.331 which merely teaches a number of different values, the choice of which would have been a routine engineering decision. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have seen the combination of references as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, each element in combination performing the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 4, 14, 24, 25, and 61-66 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over TS 36.322, which incorporates and references TS 36.3007 as well as “Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) Radio Resource Control (RRC); Protocol specification”, 3GPP TS 36.331 v8.2.0 (2008-05) (hereinafter “TS 36.331”), in view of Kim et al., Davis et al., and US Pat 7,957,389 to Hu et al., all of record. This is an intervening art rejection.
As to claim 4, TS 36.322 discloses:
A method for delivery of one or more data blocks in a digital communications system, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of transmit data packets from a sending unit, each transmit data packet comprising a transmit sequence number (SN) specifying a sequence of transmission of transmit data packets:
TS 36.322 discloses a system and method including means to transmit PDUs from a transmitting element to a receiving element. TS 36.322 discloses that a UE or BS may do both. TS 36.322 at Sec. 4.2.1-4.2.1.1 pp. 7-9 and Sec. 4.2.1.3 p. 11. TS 36.322 discloses that the UE may receive RLC PDUs. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1. The PDUs all comprise a SN which specifies a sequence of transmission of transmit data packets. Id. at Sec. 6.2, 6.2.1.3-6.2.1.5, and 6.2.2.3.
extracting a transmit packet identifier associated with each of said plurality of transmit data packets;
identifying a missing data identifier based on extracting; and
… specifying said one of said transmit data packets associated with said missing packet identifier as said missing data packet;
TS 36.322 discloses a receiver determining the SN for received packets, which reads extracting, and identifying a missing packet SN. TS 36.322 at Sec. 5.1.3, “Receive Operations”. TS 36.322 discloses thus determining a failure of reception of an RLC PDU. Id. at Sec. 5.2.3. Lastly, TS 36.322 discloses, setting a timer, and at the end of the timer, forming the status PDU. Id. at Sec. 5.1.3 and 7.2.
transmitting at least one status control packet to said sending unit, said status control packet … including a packet identifier indicative of a data packet received from said sending unit and at least one status payload portion including said missing packet identifier, said missing packet identifier comprising a transmit packet identifier for said missing data packet:
TS 36.322 discloses transmitting a status PDU to the sending unit. TS 36.322 discloses a system including means to transmit PDUs including status PDUs from a transmitting element to a receiving element. TS 36.322 at Sec. 5.2.1 and 5.2.7.3. The status PDU is described in Sec. 6.2.1.6, and includes a header followed by an ACK_SN, which is a packet identifier indicative of a packet received from the sending unit. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.14. The status PDU further includes, in its payload portion, one or more missing packet identifiers comprising a transmit packet identifier for the missing data packet. Id. and at Sec. 6.2.2.15-6.2.2.16.
said status payload portion includes a negative acknowledgement (NACK) field including said missing packet identifier, a beginning setoff value, and an ending setoff value; and
TS 36.322 further describes the payload portion of the status PDU as including a NACK field including the missing packet SN. TS 36.322 further discloses additional portions including a beginning setoff value, and an ending setoff value associated with the NACK SN. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.16-6.2.2.17.
receiving at least one re-segmented data packet from said sending unit.
TS 36.322 further discloses receiving re-segmented PDUs. Id. at Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 6.1.1.
TS 36.322 fails to disclose that the ACK_SN is in the header of the packet, instead disclosing that it follows the header. TS 36.322 discloses a NACK field, BSO field, and ESO field, but does not disclose that all three are in the same field. Lastly, TS 36.322 does not disclose determining the packet is missing, and at the end of time period if it is still identified as missing, specifying such.
Kim discloses a system and method for communicating packets between a sending and receiving unit whereby the receiving unit may provide a status packet back to the sender identifying a missing packet. Kim at col. 8 l. 40-col. 9 l. 5. Kim further discloses that it was well-known in the art in such systems to provide a packet SN in a header, separated from a packet payload as shown in FIG 2, below:
PNG
media_image1.png
459
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Id. at col. 2 l. 14-col. 3 l. 2. Thus Kim also discloses that an original packet includes an identifying SN.
Davis discloses an analogous art, namely a method for delivering digital data comprising a receiving transmitted packets from a sending unit. Davis at FIG 1, elements 14 and 12, and at col. 1 ll. 28-63, col. 3 ll. 24-48. Davis discloses that the received data packets comprising a sequence number which specifies a sequence of data packets, recognizing a failure to receive at least one packet from the sender, and transmitting a control packet in response to the recognition. Id. at col. 1 ll. 38-52, col. 3 l. 50-col. 4 l. 29 Davis at. The status control packet comprises a missing packet identifier. Id. at col. 4 ll. 22-26.
Davis discloses a number of fields in his status packet, and notes that several fields may together be considered a field. Id. at col. 4 ll. 12-18 (“[f]ields 46 and 48 together comprise a control field 41.”)
Hu discloses an analogous art, namely sending and receiving RLC PDUs between a sending unit and a receiving unit, including means for producing and sending a status packet from the receiver to the sender when it is determined that a packet was not received. Hu at col. 5 ll. 5-39. Hu states that, upon initially determining a packet may be missing by noting a lack of the packet’s in the receiving of multiple packets, a timer is set and, upon expiration of said timer, the deeming of the packet as missing is made complete. Id. at col. 5 ll. 40-47.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 36.322 in such a fashion, notably as to packet field construction as well as a timer.
First, the construction of a packet is relatively arbitrary, and thus defining what part of the packet is the header and which is the payload is up to the system designer. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art, constructing a system from the disclosure of TS 36.322, would understand the need to be flexible in delineating the boundaries of the packets used and would have looked to Kim and Davis for teachings in that regard. Further, while TS 36.322 discloses a timer for determining packet loss, the reference does not state that the timer starts upon an initial determination of packet loss, which would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to the Hu reference. Lastly, this would have been a clear example of a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143(B), citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Further as to claim 24,
TS 36.322 further discloses that the header and payload of the status control packet are set up such that the packet has a whole number of octets (bytes). TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.6 p. 25, noting “padding/reserve bits”. Note further that Kim states that the ARQ packet includes an additional framing header 235 intended for “[r]econfiguring the original packet delivered in an appropriate size from the upper layer" and "restor[ing] the framed packet to its original packet". Kim at col. 2 ll. 54-61.
Further as to claims 61-63,
Note that TS 36.322 references and incorporates TS 36.300 (TS 36.322 at Sec. 2), which in turn references and incorporates TS 36.331. TS 36.300 at Sec. 2. TS 36.331 discloses details of the T_reordering timer disclosed by the TS 36.322 reference, and states that the timer may be set to wait a number of different values, many of which fall between 10-35, 25-35, or 25-100ms. TS 36.331 at p. 100.
As to claim 14, TS 36.322 discloses:
A digital communications system for delivering one or more data blocks, the system comprising at least one transmit/receive unit (TRU), said TRU comprising:
a storage element for receiving a plurality of transmit data packets, each transmit data packet comprising a transmit sequence number (SN) specifying a sequence of transmission of transmit data packets, and at least one re-segmented data packet from a sending unit; and
TS 36.322 discloses a system and method including means to transmit PDUs from a transmitting element to a receiving element (reads TRU). TS 36.322 discloses that a UE or BS may do both. TS 36.322 at Sec. 4.2.1-4.2.1.1 pp. 7-9 and Sec. 4.2.1.3 p. 11. TS 36.322 discloses that the UE may receive RLC PDUs. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1. The PDUs all comprise a SN which specifies a sequence of transmission of transmit data packets. Id. at Sec. 6.2, 6.2.1.3-6.2.1.5, and 6.2.2.3. TS 36.322 further discloses receiving re-segmented PDUs. Id. at Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 6.1.1.
TS 36.322 discloses a receiving unit comprises a receive buffer for receiving and storing transmit data packets. TS 36.322 at Sec. 4.2.1.3.1TS 36.322 discloses that RLC data PDUs may be transmitted or retransmitted. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.2, 4.4, 5.2.1, 6.1.1, and 6.2.2.10. TS 36.322 discloses receiving a retransmit data packet from the sending unit. Id. at Sec. 5.2.1.
a processing element communicatively coupled to said storage element, said processing element configured for:
recognizing a failure to receive at least one other transmit data packet (missing data packet) from said sending unit, comprising:
extracting said transmit packet identifier associated with each of said plurality of transmit data packets;
identifying a missing data identifier based on extracting; and
… specifying said one of said transmit data packets associated with said missing packet identifier as said missing data packet, and
TS 36.322 discloses a receiver determining the SN for received packets, which reads extracting, and identifying a missing packet SN. TS 36.322 at Sec. 5.1.3, “Receive Operations”. TS 36.322 discloses thus determining a failure of reception of an RLC PDU. Id. at Sec. 5.2.3. This can occur at the UE or eNB, which comprises a processor. Note that TS 36.322 references and incorporates TS 36.300 (TS 36.322 at Sec. 2), which discloses apparatus details as to the UE and eNB, showing processing which occurs therein. TS 36.300 at, inter alia, Sec. 5.1.2 and 5.2.2. . Lastly, TS 36.322 discloses, setting a timer, and at the end of the timer, forming the status PDU. Id. at Sec. 5.1.3 and 7.2.
configuring at least one status control packet for transmission to said sending unit, said status control packet comprising … a packet identifier which is indicative of a transmit SN for a data packet received from said sending unit and at least one status payload portion including at least one negative acknowledgement (NACK) field including a missing packet identifier, said missing packet identifier comprising a transmit packet identifier for said missing data packet, said NACK field including a beginning setoff value and an ending setoff value.
TS 36.322 discloses transmitting a status PDU to the sending unit. TS 36.322 discloses a system including means to transmit PDUs including status PDUs from a transmitting element to a receiving element. TS 36.322 at Sec. 5.2.1 and 5.2.7.3. The status PDU is described in Sec. 6.2.1.6, and includes a header followed by an ACK_SN, which is a packet identifier indicative of a packet received from the sending unit. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.14. The status PDU further includes, in its payload portion, one or more missing packet identifiers comprising a transmit packet identifier for the missing data packet. Id. and at Sec. 6.2.2.15-6.2.2.16.
TS 36.322 further describes the payload portion of the status PDU as including a NACK field including the missing packet SN. TS 36.322 further discloses additional portions including a beginning setoff value, and an ending setoff value associated with the NACK SN. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.16-6.2.2.17.
TS 36.322 fails to disclose that the ACK_SN is in the header of the packet, instead disclosing that it follows the header. TS 36.322 discloses a NACK field, BSO field, and ESO field, but does not disclose that all three are in the same field. Lastly, TS 36.322 does not disclose determining the packet is missing, and at the end of time period if it is still identified as missing, specifying such.
Kim discloses a system and method for communicating packets between a sending and receiving unit whereby the receiving unit may provide a status packet back to the sender identifying a missing packet. Kim at col. 8 l. 40-col. 9 l. 5. Kim further discloses that it was well-known in the art in such systems to provide a packet SN in a header, separated from a packet payload as shown in FIG 2, below:
PNG
media_image2.png
459
851
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Id. at col. 2 l. 14-col. 3 l. 2. Thus Kim also discloses that an original packet includes an identifying SN.
Davis discloses an analogous art, namely a method for delivering digital data comprising a receiving transmitted packets from a sending unit. Davis at FIG 1, elements 14 and 12, and at col. 1 ll. 28-63, col. 3 ll. 24-48. Davis discloses that the received data packets comprising a sequence number which specifies a sequence of data packets, recognizing a failure to receive at least one packet from the sender, and transmitting a control packet in response to the recognition. Id. at col. 1 ll. 38-52, col. 3 l. 50-col. 4 l. 29 Davis at. The status control packet comprises a missing packet identifier. Id. at col. 4 ll. 22-26.
Davis discloses a number of fields in his status packet, and notes that several fields may together be considered a field. Id. at col. 4 ll. 12-18 (“[f]ields 46 and 48 together comprise a control field 41.”)
Hu discloses an analogous art, namely sending and receiving RLC PDUs between a sending unit and a receiving unit, including means for producing and sending a status packet from the receiver to the sender when it is determined that a packet was not received. Hu at col. 5 ll. 5-39. Hu states that, upon initially determining a packet may be missing by noting a lack of the packet’s in the receiving of multiple packets, a timer is set and, upon expiration of said timer, the deeming of the packet as missing is made complete. Id. at col. 5 ll. 40-47.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 36.322 in such a fashion, notably as to packet field order and construction and the use of a timer.
First, the construction of a packet is relatively arbitrary, and thus defining what part of the packet is the header and which is the payload is up to the system designer. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art, constructing a system from the disclosure of TS 36.322, would understand the need to be flexible in delineating the boundaries of the packets used and would have looked to Kim and Davis for teachings in that regard. Further, while TS 36.322 discloses a timer for determining packet loss, the reference does not state that the timer starts upon an initial determination of packet loss, which would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to the Hu reference. Lastly, this would have been a clear example of a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143(B), citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Further as to claim 25,
TS 36.322 further discloses that the header and payload of the status control packet are set up such that the packet has a whole number of octets (bytes). TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.6 p. 25, noting “padding/reserve bits”. Note further that Kim states that the ARQ packet includes an additional framing header 235 intended for “[r]econfiguring the original packet delivered in an appropriate size from the upper layer" and "restor[ing] the framed packet to its original packet". Kim at col. 2 ll. 54-61.
Further as to claims 64-66,
Note that TS 36.322 references and incorporates TS 36.300 (TS 36.322 at Sec. 2), which in turn references and incorporates TS 36.331. TS 36.300 at Sec. 2. TS 36.331 discloses details of the T_reordering timer disclosed by the TS 36.322 reference, and states that the timer may be set to wait a number of different values, many of which fall between 10-35, 25-35, or 25-100ms. TS 36.331 at p. 100.
Claims 11-13, 16, 17, 21, and 22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over TS 36.322, which references and incorporates TS 36.3008, in view of US Pat 8,050,247 to Kim et al. and US Pat 6,049,902 to Davis et al., both of record. This is an intervening art rejection.
As to claim 11, TS 36.322 discloses:
A digital communications system for delivering one or more data blocks, the system comprising at least one transmit/receive unit (TRU), said TRU comprising:
TS 36.322 discloses a system and method including means to transmit PDUs from a transmitting element to a receiving element (reads TRU). TS 36.322 discloses that a UE or BS may do both. TS 36.322 at Sec. 4.2.1-4.2.1.1 pp. 7-9 and Sec. 4.2.1.3 p. 11. TS 36.322 discloses that the UE may receive RLC PDUs. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.
a storage element for receiving a plurality of transmit data packets, each transmit data packet comprising a transmit sequence number (SN) specifying a sequence of transmission of transmit data packets, and at least one re-segmented data packet from a sending unit; and
TS 36.322 discloses a receiving unit comprises a receive buffer for receiving and storing transmit data packets. TS 36.322 at Sec. 4.2.1.3.1. The PDUs all comprise a SN which specifies a sequence of transmission of transmit data packets. Id. at Sec. 6.2, 6.2.1.3-6.2.1.5, and 6.2.2.3. TS 36.322 further discloses receiving re-segmented PDUs. Id. at Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 6.1.1.
a processing element communicatively coupled to said storage element, said processing element configured for:
recognizing a failure to receive at least one other transmit data packet (missing data packet) from said sending unit, and
configuring at least one status control packet for transmission to said sending unit, said status control packet comprising … a packet identifier which is indicative of a transmit SN for a data packet received from said sending unit
TS 36.322 discloses determining a failure of reception of an RLC PDU. TS 36.322 at Sec. 5.2.3. TS 36.322 discloses that RLC data PDUs may be either segmented or re-segmented. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.2, 4.4, 6.1.1, and 6.2.2.10. This can occur at the UE or eNB, which comprises a processor. Note that TS 36.322 references and incorporates TS 36.300 (TS 36.322 at Sec. 2), which discloses apparatus details as to the UE and eNB, showing processing which occurs therein. TS 36.300 at, inter alia, Sec. 5.1.2 and 5.2.2.
TS 36.322 further discloses generating a status PDU for transmission to the sending unit. TS 36.322 at Sec. 5.2.1 and 5.2.7.3. The status PDU is described in Sec. 6.2.1.6, and includes a header followed by an ACK_SN, which is a packet identifier indicative of a packet received from the sending unit. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.14.
and at least one status payload portion including at least one negative acknowledgement (NACK) field including a missing packet identifier, said missing packet identifier comprising a transmit packet identifier for said missing data packet, said NACK field including a beginning setoff value and an ending setoff value.
The status PDU may include a NACK identifying a packet not received by its SN. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.16. TS 36.322 further discloses that the status PDU may include, with the NACK, a beginning and ending offset value indicating a portion of data not received. Id. at Sec. 6.2.2.16 and 6.2.2.17 p 29.
TS 36.322 fails to disclose that the ACK_SN is in the header of the packet, instead disclosing that it follows the header. TS 36.322 discloses a NACK field, BSO field, and ESO field, but does not disclose that all three are in the same field.
Kim discloses a system and method for communicating packets between a sending and receiving unit whereby the receiving unit may provide a status packet back to the sender identifying a missing packet. Kim at col. 8 l. 40-col. 9 l. 5. Kim further discloses that it was well-known in the art in such systems to provide a packet SN in a header, separated from a packet payload as shown in FIG 2, below:
PNG
media_image2.png
459
851
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Id. at col. 2 l. 14-col. 3 l. 2. Thus Kim also discloses that an original packet includes an identifying SN.
Davis discloses an analogous art, namely a method for delivering digital data comprising a receiving transmitted packets from a sending unit. Davis at FIG 1, elements 14 and 12, and at col. 1 ll. 28-63, col. 3 ll. 24-48. Davis discloses that the received data packets comprising a sequence number which specifies a sequence of data packets, recognizing a failure to receive at least one packet from the sender, and transmitting a control packet in response to the recognition. Id. at col. 1 ll. 38-52, col. 3 l. 50-col. 4 l. 29 Davis at. The status control packet comprises a missing packet identifier. Id. at col. 4 ll. 22-26.
Davis discloses a number of fields in his status packet, and notes that several fields may together be considered a field. Id. at col. 4 ll. 12-18 (“[f]ields 46 and 48 together comprise a control field 41.”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 36.322 in such a fashion as to determining the fields of the packet.
First, the construction of a packet is relatively arbitrary, and thus defining what part of the packet is the header and which is the payload is up to the system designer. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art, constructing a system from the disclosure of TS 36.322, would understand the need to be flexible in delineating the boundaries of the packets used and would have looked to Kim and Davis for teachings in that regard. Lastly, this would have been a clear example of a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143(B), citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Further as to claim 12,
TS 36.322 discloses a system including means to transmit PDUs including status PDUs from a transmitting element to a receiving element. As the entities may transmit and receive data over a radio link, they inherently comprise a transceiver. TS 36.300 discloses a transmitter and receiver. TS 36.300 at Sec. 5.2.1 and 5.2.7.3. TS 36.322 is towards a wireless interface. Davis discloses a general telecommunications system while Kim discloses a wireless one.
Further as to claim 13,
TS 36.322 further discloses that the header and payload of the status control packet are set up such that the packet has a whole number of octets (bytes). TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.6 p. 25, noting “padding/reserve bits”. Note further that Kim states that the ARQ packet includes an additional framing header 235 intended for “[r]econfiguring the original packet delivered in an appropriate size from the upper layer" and "restor[ing] the framed packet to its original packet". Kim at col. 2 ll. 54-61.
Further as to claim 16,
Davis discloses a SN (46) identifying a transmission sequence in both the request and retransmit packets and further discloses a SN (231) doing same. Kim at col. 2 ll. 50-54 and col. 4 ll. 11-50.
Further as to claim 17,
as noted above in the rejection of claim 1, TS 36.322 discloses setoff values. TS 36.322 further discloses setoff values in the AMD PDU (retransmit packet), which identifies a segment of data associated with the missing packet identifier. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.5 pp. 23-25.
As to claim 21, TS 36.322 discloses:
A digital communications system for delivering one or more data blocks, the system comprising at least one receiving unit, said receiving unit comprising:
TS 36.322 discloses a system and method including means to transmit PDUs from a transmitting element to a receiving element (reads TRU). TS 36.322 discloses that a UE or BS may do both. TS 36.322 at Sec. 4.2.1-4.2.1.1 pp. 7-9 and Sec. 4.2.1.3 p. 11. TS 36.322 discloses that the UE may receive RLC PDUs. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.
a storage element for receiving a plurality of transmit data packets, each transmit data packet comprising a transmit sequence number (SN) specifying a sequence of transmission of transmit data packets, and at least one re-segmented data packet from a sending unit; and
TS 36.322 discloses a receiving unit comprises a receive buffer for receiving and storing transmit data packets. TS 36.322 at Sec. 4.2.1.3.1. The PDUs all comprise a SN which specifies a sequence of transmission of transmit data packets. Id. at Sec. 6.2, 6.2.1.3-6.2.1.5, and 6.2.2.3. TS 36.322 further discloses receiving re-segmented PDUs. Id. at Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 6.1.1.
a processing element communicatively coupled to said storage element, said processing element configured for:
recognizing a failure to receive at least one other transmit data packet (missing data packet) from said sending unit, and configuring at least a status control packet for transmission to said sending unit, said status control packet … including a packet identifier indicative of a transmit SN for a data packet received from said sending unit
TS 36.322 discloses determining a failure of reception of an RLC PDU. TS 36.322 at Sec. 5.2.3. TS 36.322 discloses that RLC data PDUs may be either segmented or re-segmented. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.2, 4.4, 6.1.1, and 6.2.2.10. This can occur at the UE or eNB, which comprises a processor. Note that TS 36.322 references and incorporates TS 36.300 (TS 36.322 at Sec. 2), which discloses apparatus details as to the UE and eNB, showing processing which occurs therein. TS 36.300 at, inter alia, Sec. 5.1.2 and 5.2.2.
TS 36.322 further discloses generating a status PDU for transmission to the sending unit. TS 36.322 at Sec. 5.2.1 and 5.2.7.3. The status PDU is described in Sec. 6.2.1.6, and includes a header followed by an ACK_SN, which is a packet identifier indicative of a packet received from the sending unit. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.14.
and at least one status payload portion including at least one missing packet identifier, said missing packet identifier comprising a transmit packet identifier for said missing data packet, said status payload portion includes at least one negative acknowledgement (NACK) field including a missing packet identifier, a beginning setoff value, and an ending setoff value,
The status PDU may include a NACK identifying a packet not received by its SN. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.16. TS 36.322 further discloses that the status PDU may include, with the NACK, a beginning and ending offset value indicating a portion of data not received. Id. at Sec. 6.2.2.16 and 6.2.2.17 p 29.
wherein said status control packet has additional bits in at least one of said header portion and said status payload portion for increasing a total bit count for said status control packet to a whole number of bytes.
TS 36.322 further discloses that the header and payload of the status control packet are set up such that the packet has a whole number of octets (bytes). TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.6 p. 25, noting “padding/reserve bits”.
TS 36.322 fails to disclose that the ACK_SN is in the header of the packet, instead disclosing that it follows the header. TS 36.322 discloses a NACK field, BSO field, and ESO field, but does not disclose that all three are in the same field.
Kim discloses a system and method for communicating packets between a sending and receiving unit whereby the receiving unit may provide a status packet back to the sender identifying a missing packet. Kim at col. 8 l. 40-col. 9 l. 5. Kim further discloses that it was well-known in the art in such systems to provide a packet SN in a header, separated from a packet payload as shown in FIG 2, below:
PNG
media_image2.png
459
851
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Id. at col. 2 l. 14-col. 3 l. 2. Thus Kim also discloses that an original packet includes an identifying SN.
Davis discloses an analogous art, namely a method for delivering digital data comprising a receiving transmitted packets from a sending unit. Davis at FIG 1, elements 14 and 12, and at col. 1 ll. 28-63, col. 3 ll. 24-48. Davis discloses that the received data packets comprising a sequence number which specifies a sequence of data packets, recognizing a failure to receive at least one packet from the sender, and transmitting a control packet in response to the recognition. Id. at col. 1 ll. 38-52, col. 3 l. 50-col. 4 l. 29 Davis at. The status control packet comprises a missing packet identifier. Id. at col. 4 ll. 22-26.
Davis discloses a number of fields in his status packet, and notes that several fields may together be considered a field. Id. at col. 4 ll. 12-18 (“[f]ields 46 and 48 together comprise a control field 41.”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 36.322 in such a fashion as to the setup of packet fields.
First, the construction of a packet is relatively arbitrary, and thus defining what part of the packet is the header and which is the payload is up to the system designer. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art, constructing a system from the disclosure of TS 36.322, would understand the need to be flexible in delineating the boundaries of the packets used and would have looked to Kim and Davis for teachings in that regard. Lastly, this would have been a clear example of a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143(B), citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Further as to claim 22,
Davis discloses a general telecommunications system while Kim discloses a wireless one. TS 36.322 is towards a wireless interface.
Claims 47-49, 51-53, 56, and 58-60 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over TS 36.322, which references and incorporates TS 36.3009, in view of US Pat 8,050,247 to Kim et al. This is an intervening art rejection.
As to claim 47, TS 36.322 discloses:
A digital communications system for delivering one or more data blocks, the system comprising at least one transmit/receive unit (TRU), said TRU comprising:
TS 36.322 discloses a system and method including means to transmit PDUs from a transmitting element to a receiving element (reads TRU). TS 36.322 discloses that a UE or BS may do both. TS 36.322 at Sec. 4.2.1-4.2.1.1 pp. 7-9 and Sec. 4.2.1.3 p. 11. TS 36.322 discloses that the UE may receive RLC PDUs. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1. The PDUs all comprise a SN which specifies a sequence of transmission of transmit data packets. Id. at Sec. 6.2, 6.2.1.3-6.2.1.5, and 6.2.2.3.
a storage element for receiving a plurality of transmit data packets and at least one re-segmented transmit data packet from a sending unit; and
TS 36.322 discloses a receiving unit comprises a receive buffer for receiving and storing transmit data packets. TS 36.322 at Sec. 4.2.1.3.1. The PDUs all comprise a SN which specifies a sequence of transmission of transmit data packets. Id. at Sec. 6.2, 6.2.1.3-6.2.1.5, and 6.2.2.3. TS 36.322 discloses that RLC data PDUs may be transmitted or retransmitted. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.2, 4.4, 5.2.1, 6.1.1, and 6.2.2.10. TS 36.322 discloses receiving a retransmit data packet from the sending unit. Id. at Sec. 5.2.1. TS 36.322 further discloses receiving re-segmented PDUs. Id. at Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 6.1.1.
a processing element communicatively coupled to said storage element, said processing element for configured for:
recognizing a failure to receive at least one other transmit data packet (missing data packet) from said sending unit, and
configuring at least one status control packet for transmission to said sending unit, said status control packet comprising … a packet identifier indicative of a data packet received from said sending unit
TS 36.322 discloses determining a failure of reception of an RLC PDU. TS 36.322 at Sec. 5.2.3. TS 36.322 discloses that RLC data PDUs may be either segmented or re-segmented. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.2, 4.4, 6.1.1, and 6.2.2.10. This can occur at the UE or eNB, which comprises a processor. Note that TS 36.322 references and incorporates TS 36.300 (TS 36.322 at Sec. 2), which discloses apparatus details as to the UE and eNB, showing processing which occurs therein. TS 36.300 at, inter alia, Sec. 5.1.2 and 5.2.2.
TS 36.322 further discloses generating a status PDU for transmission to the sending unit. TS 36.322 at Sec. 5.2.1 and 5.2.7.3. The status PDU is described in Sec. 6.2.1.6, and includes a header followed by an ACK_SN, which is a packet identifier indicative of a packet received from the sending unit. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.14.
and a status payload portion including a missing packet identifier, a beginning setoff value, an ending setoff value.
The status PDU further includes, in its payload portion, one or more missing packet identifiers comprising a transmit packet identifier for the missing data packet. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.2.15-6.2.2.16. TS 36.322 further describes the payload portion of the status PDU as including a NACK field including the missing packet SN. Id. TS 36.322 further discloses additional portions including a beginning setoff value, and an ending setoff value associated with the NACK SN. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.16-6.2.2.17.
TS 36.322 fails to disclose that the ACK_SN is in the header of the packet, instead disclosing that it follows the header.
Kim discloses a system and method for communicating packets between a sending and receiving unit whereby the receiving unit may provide a status packet back to the sender identifying a missing packet. Kim at col. 8 l. 40-col. 9 l. 5. Kim further discloses that it was well-known in the art in such systems to provide a packet SN in a header, separated from a packet payload as shown in FIG 2, below:
PNG
media_image2.png
459
851
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Id. at col. 2 l. 14-col. 3 l. 2. Thus Kim also discloses that an original packet includes an identifying SN.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 36.322 in such a fashion as to creating the fields of the packet.
First, the construction of a packet is relatively arbitrary, and thus defining what part of the packet is the header and which is the payload is up to the system designer. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art, constructing a system from the disclosure of TS 36.322, would understand the need to be flexible in delineating the boundaries of the packets used and would have looked to Kim for teachings in that regard. Lastly, this would have been a clear example of a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143(B), citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Further as to claim 48,
Davis discloses a general telecommunications system while Kim discloses a wireless one. TS 36.322 is towards a wireless interface. As the entities may transmit and receive data over a radio link, they inherently comprise a transceiver. Note that TS 36.322 references and incorporates TS 36.300 (TS 36.322 at Sec. 2), which discloses apparatus details as to the UE and eNB, showing processing which occurs therein as well as a transmitter and receiver. TS 36.300 at, inter alia, Sec. 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, and 5.2.7.3.
Further as to claim 49,
TS 36.322 further discloses that the header and payload of the status control packet are set up such that the packet has a whole number of octets (bytes). TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.6 p. 25, noting “padding/reserve bits”. Note further that Kim states that the ARQ packet includes an additional framing header 235 intended for “[r]econfiguring the original packet delivered in an appropriate size from the upper layer" and "restor[ing] the framed packet to its original packet". Kim at col. 2 ll. 54-61.
Further as to claim 51,
TS 36.322 discloses a SN as noted above, which identifies a transmission sequence in both the request and retransmit packets and further discloses a SN doing same.
Further as to claim 52,
TS 36.322 discloses receiving a retransmit data packet from the sending unit. TS 36.322 at Sec. 5.2.1. TS 36.322 further discloses that a PDU sent from the sender comprises a transmit SN (reads retransmit SN), and may include a segment of a data payload from the missing data packet. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.5, 6.2.2.3, 6.2.2.5-6.2.2.8.
Further as to claim 53,
TS 36.322 discloses that the retransmit packet may include offsets identifying a location of the resent segment in the data packet. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.5., 6.2.2.3, 6.2.2.5-6.2.2.8.
Further as to claim 56,
TS 36.322 discloses that the missing packet ID is in a NACK field. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.16.
As to claim 58, TS 36.322 discloses:
A digital communications system for delivering one or more data blocks, the system comprising at least one receiving unit, said receiving unit comprising:
TS 36.322 discloses a system and method including means to transmit PDUs from a transmitting element to a receiving element. TS 36.322 discloses that a UE or BS may do both. TS 36.322 at Sec. 4.2.1-4.2.1.1 pp. 7-9 and Sec. 4.2.1.3 p. 11. TS 36.322 discloses that the UE may receive RLC PDUs. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1. The PDUs all comprise a SN which specifies a sequence of transmission of transmit data packets. Id. at Sec. 6.2, 6.2.1.3-6.2.1.5, and 6.2.2.3.
a storage element for receiving a plurality of transmit data packets and at least one re-segmented data packet from a sending unit; and
TS 36.322 discloses a receiving unit comprises a receive buffer for receiving and storing transmit data packets. TS 36.322 at Sec. 4.2.1.3.1. The PDUs all comprise a SN which specifies a sequence of transmission of transmit data packets. Id. at Sec. 6.2, 6.2.1.3-6.2.1.5, and 6.2.2.3. TS 36.322 discloses that RLC data PDUs may be transmitted or retransmitted. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.2, 4.4, 5.2.1, 6.1.1, and 6.2.2.10. TS 36.322 discloses receiving a retransmit data packet from the sending unit. Id. at Sec. 5.2.1. TS 36.322 further discloses receiving re-segmented PDUs. Id. at Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 6.1.1.
a processing element communicatively coupled to said storage element, said processing element configured for:
recognizing a failure to receive at least one other transmit data packet (missing data packet) from said sending unit, and configuring at least a status control packet for transmission to said sending unit, said status control packet comprising … a packet identifier indicative of a data packet received from said sending unit,
TS 36.322 discloses determining a failure of reception of an RLC PDU. TS 36.322 at Sec. 5.2.3. TS 36.322 discloses that RLC data PDUs may be either segmented or re-segmented. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.2, 4.4, 6.1.1, and 6.2.2.10. This can occur at the UE or eNB, which comprises a processor. Note that TS 36.322 references and incorporates TS 36.300 (TS 36.322 at Sec. 2), which discloses apparatus details as to the UE and eNB, showing processing which occurs therein. TS 36.300 at, inter alia, Sec. 5.1.2 and 5.2.2.
TS 36.322 further discloses generating a status PDU for transmission to the sending unit. TS 36.322 at Sec. 5.2.1 and 5.2.7.3. The status PDU is described in Sec. 6.2.1.6, and includes a header followed by an ACK_SN, which is a packet identifier indicative of a packet received from the sending unit. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.14.
a status payload portion including a missing data packet identifier, a beginning setoff value and an ending setoff value,
The status PDU further includes, in its payload portion, one or more missing packet identifiers comprising a transmit packet identifier for the missing data packet. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.2.15-6.2.2.16. TS 36.322 further describes the payload portion of the status PDU as including a NACK field including the missing packet SN. Id. TS 36.322 further discloses additional portions including a beginning setoff value, and an ending setoff value associated with the NACK SN. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.16-6.2.2.17.
said status control packet including additional bits in at least one of said header portion and said status payload portion for increasing a total bit count for said status control packet to a whole number of bytes.
TS 36.322 further discloses that the header and payload of the status control packet are set up such that the packet has a whole number of octets (bytes). TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.6 p. 25, noting “padding/reserve bits”. Note further that Kim states that the ARQ packet includes an additional framing header 235 intended for “[r]econfiguring the original packet delivered in an appropriate size from the upper layer" and "restor[ing] the framed packet to its original packet". Kim at col. 2 ll. 54-61.
TS 36.322 fails to disclose that the ACK_SN is in the header of the packet, instead disclosing that it follows the header.
Kim discloses a system and method for communicating packets between a sending and receiving unit whereby the receiving unit may provide a status packet back to the sender identifying a missing packet. Kim at col. 8 l. 40-col. 9 l. 5. Kim further discloses that it was well-known in the art in such systems to provide a packet SN in a header, separated from a packet payload as shown in FIG 2, below:
PNG
media_image2.png
459
851
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Id. at col. 2 l. 14-col. 3 l. 2. Thus Kim also discloses that an original packet includes an identifying SN.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 36.322 in such a fashion as to packet field construction.
First, the construction of a packet is relatively arbitrary, and thus defining what part of the packet is the header and which is the payload is up to the system designer. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art, constructing a system from the disclosure of TS 36.322, would understand the need to be flexible in delineating the boundaries of the packets used and would have looked to Kim for teachings in that regard. Lastly, this would have been a clear example of a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143(B), citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Further as to claim 59,
TS 36.322 discloses a SN as noted above, which identifies a transmission sequence in both the request and retransmit packets and further discloses a SN doing same.
Further as to claim 60,
TS 36.322 discloses that the missing packet ID is in a NACK field. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.16.
Claims 39, 50, 55, and 67-72 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over TS 36.322, which incorporates and references TS 36.30010 as well as TS 36.331, in view of Kim et al. and US Pat 7,957,389 to Hu et al. This is an intervening art rejection.
As to claim 39, TS 36.322 discloses:
A method for delivery of one or more data blocks in a digital communications system, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of transmit data packets from a sending unit;
TS 36.322 discloses a system and method including means to transmit PDUs from a transmitting element to a receiving element (reads TRU). TS 36.322 discloses that a UE or BS may do both. TS 36.322 at Sec. 4.2.1-4.2.1.1 pp. 7-9 and Sec. 4.2.1.3 p. 11. TS 36.322 discloses that the UE may receive RLC PDUs. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1. The PDUs all comprise a SN which specifies a sequence of transmission of transmit data packets. Id. at Sec. 6.2, 6.2.1.3-6.2.1.5, and 6.2.2.3.
TS 36.322 discloses a receiving unit comprises a receive buffer for receiving and storing transmit data packets. TS 36.322 at Sec. 4.2.1.3.1TS 36.322 discloses that RLC data PDUs may be transmitted or retransmitted. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.2, 4.4, 5.2.1, 6.1.1, and 6.2.2.10.
extracting said transmit packet identifier associated with each of said plurality of transmit data packets;
identifying said missing data identifier based on extracting; and
… specifying said one of said transmit data packets associated with said missing packet identifier as a missing data packet;
TS 36.322 discloses a receiver determining the SN for received packets, which reads extracting, and identifying a missing packet SN. TS 36.322 at Sec. 5.1.3, “Receive Operations”. TS 36.322 discloses thus determining a failure of reception of an RLC PDU. Id. at Sec. 5.2.3. Lastly, TS 36.322 discloses, setting a timer, and at the end of the timer, forming the status PDU. Id. at Sec. 5.1.3 and 7.2.
transmitting at least one status control packet to said sending unit, said status control packet comprising a header including a packet identifier indicative of a data packet received from said sending unit
TS 36.322 discloses transmitting a status PDU to the sending unit. TS 36.322 discloses a system including means to transmit PDUs including status PDUs from a transmitting element to a receiving element. TS 36.322 at Sec. 5.2.1 and 5.2.7.3. The status PDU is described in Sec. 6.2.1.6, and includes a header followed by an ACK_SN, which is a packet identifier indicative of a packet received from the sending unit. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.14. The status PDU further includes, in its payload portion, one or more missing packet identifiers comprising a transmit packet identifier for the missing data packet. Id. and at Sec. 6.2.2.15-6.2.2.16.
and a status payload portion including at least one missing packet identifier comprising a transmit packet identifier for said missing data packet; said status payload portion including a beginning setoff value and an ending setoff value; and
TS 36.322 further describes the payload portion of the status PDU as including a NACK field including the missing packet SN. TS 36.322 further discloses additional portions including a beginning setoff value, and an ending setoff value associated with the NACK SN. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.16-6.2.2.17.
receiving at least one re-segmented transmit data packet from said sending unit.
TS 36.322 further discloses receiving re-segmented PDUs. Id. at Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 6.1.1.
TS 36.322 fails to disclose that the ACK_SN is in the header of the packet, instead disclosing that it follows the header. TS 36.322 does not disclose determining the packet is missing, and at the end of time period if it is still identified as missing, specifying such.
Kim discloses a system and method for communicating packets between a sending and receiving unit whereby the receiving unit may provide a status packet back to the sender identifying a missing packet. Kim at col. 8 l. 40-col. 9 l. 5. Kim further discloses that it was well-known in the art in such systems to provide a packet SN in a header, separated from a packet payload as shown in FIG 2, below:
PNG
media_image2.png
459
851
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Id. at col. 2 l. 14-col. 3 l. 2. Thus Kim also discloses that an original packet includes an identifying SN.
Hu discloses an analogous art, namely sending and receiving RLC PDUs between a sending unit and a receiving unit, including means for producing and sending a status packet from the receiver to the sender when it is determined that a packet was not received. Hu at col. 5 ll. 5-39. Hu states that, upon initially determining a packet may be missing by noting a lack of the packet’s in the receiving of multiple packets, a timer is set and, upon expiration of said timer, the deeming of the packet as missing is made complete. Id. at col. 5 ll. 40-47.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 36.322 in such a fashion, namely as to organizing the packet.
First, the construction of a packet is relatively arbitrary, and thus defining what part of the packet is the header and which is the payload is up to the system designer. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art, constructing a system from the disclosure of TS 36.322, would understand the need to be flexible in delineating the boundaries of the packets used and would have looked to Kim for teachings in that regard. Further, while TS 36.322 discloses a timer for determining packet loss, the reference does not state that the timer starts upon an initial determination of packet loss, which would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to the Hu reference. Lastly, this would have been a clear example of a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143(B), citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Further as to claims 67-69,
Note that TS 36.322 references and incorporates TS 36.300 (TS 36.322 at Sec. 2), which in turn references and incorporates TS 36.331. TS 36.300 at Sec. 2. TS 36.331 discloses details of the T_reordering timer disclosed by the TS 36.322 reference, and states that the timer may be set to wait a number of different values, many of which fall between 10-35, 25-35, or 25-100ms. TS 36.331 at p. 100.
As to claim 50, TS 36.322 discloses:
A digital communications system for delivering one or more data blocks, the system comprising at least one transmit/receive unit (TRU), said TRU comprising:
a storage element for receiving a plurality of transmit data packets and at least one re-segmented data packet from a sending unit,
TS 36.322 discloses a system and method including means to transmit PDUs from a transmitting element to a receiving element (reads TRU). TS 36.322 discloses that a UE or BS may do both. TS 36.322 at Sec. 4.2.1-4.2.1.1 pp. 7-9 and Sec. 4.2.1.3 p. 11. TS 36.322 discloses that the UE may receive RLC PDUs. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1. The PDUs all comprise a SN which specifies a sequence of transmission of transmit data packets. Id. at Sec. 6.2, 6.2.1.3-6.2.1.5, and 6.2.2.3.
TS 36.322 discloses a receiving unit comprises a receive buffer for receiving and storing transmit data packets. TS 36.322 at Sec. 4.2.1.3.1. TS 36.322 discloses that RLC data PDUs may be transmitted or retransmitted. Id. at Sec. 4.2.1.3.2, 4.4, 5.2.1, 6.1.1, and 6.2.2.10. TS 36.322 discloses receiving a retransmit data packet from the sending unit. Id. at Sec. 5.2.1. TS 36.322 further discloses receiving re-segmented PDUs. Id. at Secs. 4.2.1.3.2 and 6.1.1.
and a processing element communicatively coupled to said storage element, said processing element for configured for: extracting said transmit packet identifier associated with each of said plurality of transmit data packets;
identifying a missing data identifier based on extracting; and
… specifying said one of said transmit data packets associated with said missing packet identifier as a missing data packet; and
TS 36.322 discloses a receiver determining the SN for received packets, which reads extracting, and identifying a missing packet SN. TS 36.322 at Sec. 5.1.3, “Receive Operations”. TS 36.322 discloses thus determining a failure of reception of an RLC PDU. Id. at Sec. 5.2.3. This can occur at the UE or eNB, which comprises a processor. Note that TS 36.322 references and incorporates TS 36.300 (TS 36.322 at Sec. 2), which discloses apparatus details as to the UE and eNB, showing processing which occurs therein. TS 36.300 at, inter alia, Sec. 5.1.2 and 5.2.2. . Lastly, TS 36.322 discloses, setting a timer, and at the end of the timer, forming the status PDU. Id. at Sec. 5.1.3 and 7.2.
configuring at least one status control packet for transmission to said sending unit, said status control packet comprising a header portion including a packet identifier indicative of a data packet received from said sending unit and a status payload portion including a missing packet identifier, a beginning setoff value, an ending setoff value.
TS 36.322 discloses transmitting a status PDU to the sending unit. TS 36.322 discloses a system including means to transmit PDUs including status PDUs from a transmitting element to a receiving element. TS 36.322 at Sec. 5.2.1 and 5.2.7.3. The status PDU is described in Sec. 6.2.1.6, and includes a header followed by an ACK_SN, which is a packet identifier indicative of a packet received from the sending unit. Id. at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.14. The status PDU further includes, in its payload portion, one or more missing packet identifiers comprising a transmit packet identifier for the missing data packet. Id. and at Sec. 6.2.2.15-6.2.2.16.
TS 36.322 further describes the payload portion of the status PDU as including a NACK field including the missing packet SN. TS 36.322 further discloses additional portions including a beginning setoff value, and an ending setoff value associated with the NACK SN. TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.16-6.2.2.17.
TS 36.322 fails to disclose that the ACK_SN is in the header of the packet, instead disclosing that it follows the header. TS 36.322 does not disclose determining the packet is missing, and at the end of time period if it is still identified as missing, specifying such.
Kim discloses a system and method for communicating packets between a sending and receiving unit whereby the receiving unit may provide a status packet back to the sender identifying a missing packet. Kim at col. 8 l. 40-col. 9 l. 5. Kim further discloses that it was well-known in the art in such systems to provide a packet SN in a header, separated from a packet payload as shown in FIG 2, below:
PNG
media_image2.png
459
851
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Id. at col. 2 l. 14-col. 3 l. 2. Thus Kim also discloses that an original packet includes an identifying SN.
Hu discloses an analogous art, namely sending and receiving RLC PDUs between a sending unit and a receiving unit, including means for producing and sending a status packet from the receiver to the sender when it is determined that a packet was not received. Hu at col. 5 ll. 5-39. Hu states that, upon initially determining a packet may be missing by noting a lack of the packet’s in the receiving of multiple packets, a timer is set and, upon expiration of said timer, the deeming of the packet as missing is made complete. Id. at col. 5 ll. 40-47.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify TS 36.322 in such a fashion, namely as to organizing the packet.
First, the construction of a packet is relatively arbitrary, and thus defining what part of the packet is the header and which is the payload is up to the system designer. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art, constructing a system from the disclosure of TS 36.322, would understand the need to be flexible in delineating the boundaries of the packets used and would have looked to Kim for teachings in that regard. Further, while TS 36.322 discloses a timer for determining packet loss, the reference does not state that the timer starts upon an initial determination of packet loss, which would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to the Hu reference. Lastly, this would have been a clear example of a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143(B), citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Further as to claim 55,
TS 36.322 further discloses that the header and payload of the status control packet are set up such that the packet has a whole number of octets (bytes). TS 36.322 at Sec. 6.2.1.6 p. 25, noting “padding/reserve bits”. Note further that Kim states that the ARQ packet includes an additional framing header 235 intended for “[r]econfiguring the original packet delivered in an appropriate size from the upper layer" and "restor[ing] the framed packet to its original packet". Kim at col. 2 ll. 54-61.
Further as to claims 70-72,
Note that TS 36.322 references and incorporates TS 36.300 (TS 36.322 at Sec. 2), which in turn references and incorporates TS 36.331. TS 36.300 at Sec. 2. TS 36.331 discloses details of the T_reordering timer disclosed by the TS 36.322 reference, and states that the timer may be set to wait a number of different values, many of which fall between 10-35, 25-35, or 25-100ms. TS 36.331 at p. 100.
Response to Arguments
Patent Owner provides arguments in his Response of November 24, 2025 (“Remarks”).
As to rejections under 35 USC 251 (Reissue Declaration, p. 22 of Remarks), the Examiner upholds the rejection from the previous office action. The statement in the Declaration that “[c]laims 11, 14, and 18 contain unnecessary limitations” is insufficient to identify an error or establish that the Patent Owner claimed more or less than he had the right to claim, nor does it identify a broadened claim.
As to further rejections under 35 USC 251 (Recapture, pp. 22-23 of Remarks), the Examiner upholds the rejection. As noted above, various requirements of the issued claims have been removed in this reissue which were specifically argued by Patent Owner to attain issue of the claims. Patent Owner asserts that his arguments were not “clearly and unmistabl[e]” surrender, citing MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 602 F.3d 1306, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The Examiner notes that in MBO Labs, the Court found that the applicant of the patent at issue did in fact surrender based on their arguments in original prosecution, with a similar set of facts as is at issue here; namely, applicant had argued specific features claimed were not taught by the prior art. MBO Labs at 1315. Based on the precedent Patent Owner himself cites, his argument in the original prosecution of the instant ‘812 Patent was clear and unmistakable surrender.
Patent Owner further cites CUPP Cybersecurity LLC v. Trend Micro Inc., Civil Action 3:18-cv-1251-M (N.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2021), itself citing Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In CUPP Cybersecurity, the Court stated:
The Court interprets the Federal Circuit's statement in Greenliant not as a blanket rule mandating disclaimer based on any argument advanced by the patentee during prosecution, but rather acknowledgment of other Federal Circuit guidance that a patentee can surrender claim scope even if the examiner does not expressly rely on its disclaimer. See id. (citing Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Indus., L.P., 323 F.3d 989, 995 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding that though “it is not clear from the record why the examiner allowed the claims, ” the examiner's reasons for allowance “do not negate the effect of the applicant's disclaimer”)); see also Laitram Corp. v. Morehouse Indus., Inc., 143 F.3d 1456, 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“The fact that an examiner placed no reliance on an applicant's statement distinguishing prior art does not mean that the statement is inconsequential for purposes of claim construction.”). The rule that an examiner need not necessarily rely on a patentee's statement for disclaimer to attach stems from the notice function of prosecution disclaimer, namely that competitors should be able to rely on the patentee's representations concerning the scope and the meaning of the claims when assessing potential infringement liability, even if not ultimately addressed by the patent office. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[C]ompetitors are entitled to rely on [patentee's] representations when ascertaining the degree of lawful conduct.”).
CUPP Cybersecurity at 22-23.
That is to say, Greenliant does not impose a hard and fast rule that any and all arguments made by the Applicant during prosecution create an automatic disclaimer of claim scope. Rather, Greenliant establishes that a patentee’s statements during prosecution may create a disclaimer of claim scope or establish the surrender of certain subject matter irrespective of the examiner’s subsequent reasons for allowing the claims. This is the situation here, where Patent Owner’s arguments clearly aimed at differentiating the applied prior art from the claims specifically as to the limitations at issue, leading to the claims being allowed by the Examiner, a straightforward case of a patentee being “precluded ‘from regaining the subject matter that he surrendered in an effort to obtain allowance of the original claims.’” N. Am. Container, 415 F.3d at 1349 (quoting Pannu v. Storz Instruments, Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 1370–71 (Fed.Cir.2001)). Patent Owner’s arguments that the rejection does not make clear what is surrendered subject matter are not persuasive, as the rejection specifies the surrender generating limitation.
As to rejections under §§102 and 103 (pp. 23-24 of Remarks), the Examiner notes that the previous amendment has not cured all issues with the claims as to the filing date noted above, and that some claims still include subject matter not supported by the provisional ‘893 Application.
Further, Patent Owner generally argues that, in spite of the lack of teaching in the document of any storage, processor or transceiver/receiver/transmitter element (as to claims 11, 14, 21, 26, 31, 47, 50, 58, and 74) nor any means or step of generating the disclosed status packet (claims 1,4, 11, 14, 21, 31, 47, 50, 58, 73, and 74), or transmitting such to a sender, nor a means or step of extracting packet identifiers (claims 4, 14, 39, 50), one of ordinary skill in the art could have reasonably concluded that Patent Owner was in possession of such. However, this is merely a conclusory argument which provisions no support or evidence. Patent Owner argues that he provisioned “reasoning and evidence” but again, the arguments were merely conclusory, stating merely that one of ordinary skill would have understood the features missing from the earlier disclosure were there.
As to claims wherein all offending matter has been removed (see e.g. claim 1), and the non-intervening ground of rejection above under §103, the Examiner finds Patent Owner’s arguments not persuasive.
Here, Patent Owner argues that the primary reference fails to disclose a segmented PDU. As noted previously, the reference teaches a segmented PDU as it teaches constructing a PDU from segmented parts which reads a segmented PDU. In either case, the rejection is based on the combination of references, wherein the TS 36.322 reference clearly teaches re-segmenting PDUs as claimed.
Conclusion
All claims are either identical to or patentably indistinct from claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charles Craver whose telephone number is (571) 272-7849. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30-5:30 PT Pacific Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer can be reached on 571-272-6779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Signed:
/CHARLES R CRAVER/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/ROBERT J HANCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 Note also that Patent Owner admits this on p.22 of the Amendment, stating “[n]o claims have been amended”.
2 This document is of record, provided in Patent Owner’s Information Disclosure Statement of December 1, 2014.
3 Please note the analysis of claims 61-63 above under “Priority” as having an effective filing date of September 23, 2008.
4 Please note the analysis of claims 61-63 above under “Priority” as having an effective filing date of September 23, 2008.
5 Please note the analysis of claims 61-63 above under “Priority” as having an effective filing date of September 23, 2008.
6 Please note the analysis of claims 61-63 above under “Priority” as having an effective filing date of September 23, 2008.
7 Please see the above rejection under §102.
8 Please see the above rejection under §102.
9 Please see the above rejection under §102.
10 Please see the above rejection under §102.
Prosecution Insights