Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. Claims 1-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
With regards to applicant’s arguments, filed on 12/22/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant asserts, with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15, that Hasegawa does not teach or suggest: “c) upon transmitting the data packet m times, calculating a success probability SP(u,m) for transmission of the data packet as a ratio of successfully decoded packets in m-th transmission for a user u; and(d) setting a maximum number of retries to the largest value of m that provides a non-zero value for the success probability SP(u,m)”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Hasegawa teaches, as illustrated in Fig. 6, the retransmission control unit 206 acquires the physical rate and the communication rate from the memory 204. The retransmission control unit 206 calculates an upper limit retransmission number on the basis of the physical rate and the communication rate. The upper limit retransmission number is expressed by the following Expression:
ULN=(PR−CR)/DL, wherein ULN indicates the upper limit retransmission number, PR indicates the physical rate, and CR indicates the communication rate. DL indicates a data length of a piece of divided image data. The upper limit retransmission number is calculated on the basis of the difference between the physical rate and the communication rate. The retransmission control unit 206 sets the upper limit retransmission number calculated in Step S305 of Fig. 6 as an allowable retransmission number. The retransmission control unit 206 may set an integer of one or more and less than the upper limit retransmission number as the allowable retransmission number. [Therefore, Hasegawa teaches determining the upper limit [maximum] retransmission number [Retries] and setting the upper limit retransmission number as the allowable retransmission number] (See Hasegawa; Par. [65]-[66], [69] and Fig. 6)
Further, Hasegawa teaches, as illustrated in Fig. 9, the retransmission control unit 206 acquires a retransmission success number on the basis of the sequence number list generated last time and a sequence number recorded on the memory 204. The retransmission control unit 206 compares the sequence number (first sequence number) included in the sequence number list and the sequence number (second sequence number) recorded on the memory 204 with each other. The retransmission control unit 206 acquires the number of second sequence numbers matching the first sequence number as the retransmission success number. he retransmission control unit 206 calculates a retransmission success probability on the basis of the retransmission success number calculated in Step S320 and a retransmission request number in the processing executed last time. The retransmission request number in the processing executed last time is the number of sequence numbers included in the sequence number list generated last time. The retransmission success probability is expressed by the following Expression:
PS=SN/RN, wherein PS indicates the retransmission success probability, SN indicates the retransmission success number, and RN indicates the retransmission request number. [Therefore, the retransmission success probability is calculated as a ratio of the number of successfully retransmissions to the upper limit of retransmissions. In the case that retransmission success number is not Zero, setting the allowable retransmission number to equal the retransmission success number, and setting the upper limit retransmission number to equal the allowable retransmission number] (See Hasegawa; Par. [89]-[96] and Fig. 9 & 10)
Therefore, and for the reasons set above, Hasegawa teaches the claimed invention of claims 1, 8 and 15. The rejection of claims 1-20 is sustained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-2, 8-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hasegawa et al. (US. Pub. No. 2022/0329356 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hasegawa discloses a system (See Fig. 2; Reception Device 20) comprising:
a memory storage (See Fig. 2; Memory 204): and
a processing unit, the processing unit disposed in a station and in data communication with the memory storage (See Fig. 2; Retransmission Control; Unit 206),
the processing unit operative to determine a number of packet transmission retries for an access point (AP) in a network of access points (See Par. [37], [48], [65], [69] and Fig. 6 of Hasegawa for a reference to determining the upper limit [maximum] retransmission number [Retries] and setting the upper limit retransmission number as the allowable retransmission number),
the number of packet transmission retries being determined by:
(a) setting a number, m, of retries for transmitting a data packet, where m is an upper limit of the number of retries (See Par. [65]-[69] and Fig. 6 of Hasegawa for a reference to calculating an upper limit retransmission number that indicates the maximal number of packet retransmission, which is determined based on the physical data rate and the communication data rate);
(b) transmitting the data packet m times (See Par. [25], [30], [56] and Fig. 8 of Hasegawa for a reference to the allowable retransmission number is set to equal the upper limit retransmission number. The packet is retransmitted number of times that equals the allowable retransmission number);
(c) upon transmitting the data packet m times, calculating a success probability SP(u,m) for transmission of the data packet as a ratio of successfully decoded packets in m-th transmission for a user u (See Par. [89], [92]-[94] and Figs. 9 & 10 of Hasegawa for a reference to the retransmission control unit 206 calculates a retransmission success probability on the basis of the calculated retransmission success number; See Fig. 9; S320. The success probability is expressed by the following Expression:
PS=SN/RN, which is a ratio of the number of successfully retransmissions to the upper limit of retransmissions); and
(d) setting a maximum number of retries to the largest value of m that provides a non-zero value for the success probability SP(u,m) (See Par. [90]-[96] and Fig. 10 of Hasegawa for a reference to that in the case that retransmission success number is not Zero, setting the allowable retransmission number to equal the retransmission success number, and setting the upper limit retransmission number to equal the allowable retransmission number).
Regarding claim 2, Hasegawa discloses wherein setting the maximum number of retries comprises:
(e) repeating the transmission of the data packet m-x times where x is an integer (See Par. [69], [70] and Fig. 5; S210 & Fig. 6; S310 of Hasegawa for a reference to the retransmission control unit 206 sets the retransmission candidate number, which is an integer number [X] less than [Subtracted from] the upper limit retransmission number [m]. The allowable retransmission number is set to the retransmission candidate number);
(f) upon calculating the success probability for m-x times, calculating a success probability SP(u,m-x) for transmission of the data packet (See Par. [89], [92]-[94] and Figs. 9 & 10 of Hasegawa for a reference to the retransmission control unit 206 calculates a retransmission success probability, on the basis of the calculated retransmission success number, of the allowable retransmission number, which equals the retransmission candidate number); and
(g) if SP (u,m-x) is larger than SP(u,m) then decrease x by one and repeat actions (b)-(g), if SP (u,m-x) is not larger than SP(u,m) then setting m- x as the maximum number of retries for the data packet (See Par. [96]-[97], [100]-[102] and Figs. 6 & 10 of Hasegawa for a reference to that if the retransmission success number is greater than the upper limit retransmission number (m), then setting the upper limit retransmission number as the allowable retransmission number, while if the retransmission success number is less than the upper limit retransmission number (m), then adding a predetermined number [A] to the retransmission success number and setting it as the allowable retransmission number).
Regarding claim 8, Hasegawa discloses a method comprising:
(a) setting a number, m, of retries for transmitting a data packet from an access point in a network of access points, where m is an upper limit of the number of retries (See Par. [65]-[69] and Fig. 6 of Hasegawa for a reference to calculating an upper limit retransmission number that indicates the maximal number of packet retransmission, which is determined based on the physical data rate and the communication data rate);
(b) transmitting the data packet m times (See Par. [25], [30], [56] and Fig. 8 of Hasegawa for a reference to the allowable retransmission number is set to equal the upper limit retransmission number. The packet is retransmitted number of times that equals the allowable retransmission number);
(c) upon transmitting the data packet m times, calculating a success probability SP(u,m) for transmission of the data packet, as a ratio of successfully decoded packets in m-th transmission for a user u (See Par. [89], [92]-[94] and Figs. 9 & 10 of Hasegawa for a reference to the retransmission control unit 206 calculates a retransmission success probability on the basis of the calculated retransmission success number; See Fig. 9; S320. The success probability is expressed by the following Expression:
PS=SN/RN, which is a ratio of the number of successfully retransmissions to the upper limit of retransmissions);
(d) setting the maximum number of retries to the largest value of m that provides a non-zero value for the success probability SP(u,m) (See Par. [90]-[96] and Fig. 10 of Hasegawa for a reference to that in the case that retransmission success number is not Zero, setting the allowable retransmission number to equal the retransmission success number, and setting the upper limit retransmission number to equal the allowable retransmission number).
Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, Hasegawa discloses a computer-readable medium that stores a set of non-transitory instructions that when executed perform a method executed by the set of instructions (See Par. [11] of Hasegawa for a reference to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium stores a program causing one or more processors of a reception device to execute processing) comprising:
(a) setting a number, m, of retries for transmitting a data packet from an access point in a network of access points, where m is an upper limit of the number of retries (See Par. [65]-[69] and Fig. 6 of Hasegawa for a reference to calculating an upper limit retransmission number that indicates the maximal number of packet retransmission, which is determined based on the physical data rate and the communication data rate);
(b) transmitting the data packet m times (See Par. [25], [30], [56] and Fig. 8 of Hasegawa for a reference to the allowable retransmission number is set to equal the upper limit retransmission number. The packet is retransmitted number of times that equals the allowable retransmission number);
(c) upon transmitting the data packet m times, calculating a success probability SP(u,m) for transmission of the data packet, as a ratio of successfully decoded packets in m-th transmission for a user u (See Par. [89], [92]-[94] and Figs. 9 & 10 of Hasegawa for a reference to the retransmission control unit 206 calculates a retransmission success probability on the basis of the calculated retransmission success number; See Fig. 9; S320. The success probability is expressed by the following Expression:
PS=SN/RN, which is a ratio of the number of successfully retransmissions to the upper limit of retransmissions); (d) repeating the transmission of the data packet m-x times where x is an integer (See Par. [69], [70] and Fig. 5; S210 & Fig. 6; S310 of Hasegawa for a reference to the retransmission control unit 206 sets the retransmission candidate number, which is an integer number [X] less than [Subtracted from] the upper limit retransmission number [m]. The allowable retransmission number is set to the retransmission candidate number);
(e) upon calculating the success probability for m-x times, calculating a success probability SP(u,m-x) for transmission of the data packet (See Par. [89], [92]-[94] and Figs. 9 & 10 of Hasegawa for a reference to the retransmission control unit 206 calculates a retransmission success probability, on the basis of the calculated retransmission success number, of the allowable retransmission number, which equals the retransmission candidate number); and
(f) if SP (u,m-x) is larger than SP(u,m) then decrease x by one and repeat actions (b)-(f), if SP (u,m-x) is not larger than SP(u,m) then setting m-x as the maximum number of retries for the data packet (See Par. [96]-[97], [100]-[102] and Figs. 6 & 10 of Hasegawa for a reference to that if the retransmission success number is greater than the upper limit retransmission number (m), then setting the upper limit retransmission number as the allowable retransmission number, while if the retransmission success number is less than the upper limit retransmission number (m), then adding a predetermined number [A] to the retransmission success number and setting it as the allowable retransmission number).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 3-6, 10-13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. in view of Cui et al. (US. Pub. No. 2024/0031077 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing unit is further operative to store a number of retransmissions of each access point and if a number of downloads for a particular access point exceeds a determined number then disable hybrid automatic repeat requests (HARQ) at that particular access point.
However, Cui discloses wherein the processing unit is further operative to store a number of retransmissions of each access point and if a number of downloads for a particular access point exceeds a determined number then disable hybrid automatic repeat requests (HARQ) at that particular access point (See Par. [35]. [45], [48], [53] and Fig. 6 of Cui for a reference to for each base station, for each transmission, the repetition number [Retransmission Number] is determined and stored in the reception device. If the repetition number of a BS is greater than a threshold, then the hybrid automatic repeat requests (HARQ) process is disabled).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cui to Da Hasegawa. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by improving the throughput when optimally configuring the HARQ feedback disabling. (Cui; Par. [31])
Regarding claim 4, Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing unit is further operative to: calculate a metric selected from the group consisting essentially of an orthogonal frequency division multiplex (OFDM) symbol, a signal-to- noise ratio (SNR), or an error vector magnitude (EVM), or combinations thereof; and disable hybrid automatic repeat requests (HARQ) at the access point if the metric exceeds a determined value.
However, Cui discloses wherein the processing unit is further operative to: calculate a metric selected from the group consisting essentially of an orthogonal frequency division multiplex (OFDM) symbol, a signal-to- noise ratio (SNR), or an error vector magnitude (EVM), or combinations thereof (See Par. [37]. [39], [48] of Cui for a reference to that the transmission metric is calculated based on the value of the signal-to- noise ratio (SNR). When the SNR is high enough to make the repetition number smaller than a threshold, the UE is configured to disable the HARQ feedback); and
disable hybrid automatic repeat requests (HARQ) at the access point if the metric exceeds a determined value (See Par. [35]. [45], [48], [53] of Cui for a reference to that If the calculated transmission metric is greater than a threshold, then the hybrid automatic repeat requests (HARQ) process is disabled).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cui to Da Hasegawa. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by improving the throughput when optimally configuring the HARQ feedback disabling. (Cui; Par. [31])
Regarding claim 5, Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing unit is further operative to disable hybrid automatic repeat requests (HARQ) for two or more access points in a network of access points if the metric exceeds a determined value.
However, Cui discloses wherein the processing unit is further operative to disable hybrid automatic repeat requests (HARQ) for two or more access points in a network of access points if the metric exceeds a determined value (See Par. [35]. [45], [48], [53] of Cui for a reference to for each base station, for each transmission, the repetition number [Retransmission Number] is determined and stored in the reception device. If the repetition number of a BS is greater than a threshold, then the hybrid automatic repeat requests (HARQ) process is disabled [HARQ behavior across multiple APs maps to disabling HARQ for two or more APs upon threshold conditions]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cui to Da Hasegawa. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by improving the throughput when optimally configuring the HARQ feedback disabling. (Cui; Par. [31])
Regarding claim 6, Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the access point comprises an antenna and the processing unit is further operative to beamform transmissions of a data packet from the antenna in one direction and beamform transmission of the data packet from the antenna in a different direction for a different transmission of the data packet.
However, Cui discloses wherein the access point comprises an antenna (See Fig. 2; Antenna 232) and the processing unit is further operative to beamform transmissions of a data packet from the antenna in one direction and beamform transmission of the data packet from the antenna in a different direction for a different transmission of the data packet (See Par. [25]. [57]-[58] of Cui for a reference to the UE is controlled with different transmission beans that enable packets’ transmission in one direction or in different directions (Uplink & Downlink)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cui to Da Hasegawa. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by improving the throughput when optimally configuring the HARQ feedback disabling. (Cui; Par. [31])
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
7. Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. in view of Nam et al. (US. Pub. No. 2019/0268060 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the access point comprises and antenna and is configured to transmit the packet through the antenna at a determined transmit power, the processing unit further operative to control the access point to increase the transmit power for each retransmission of the data packet.
However, Nam discloses wherein the access point comprises and antenna and is configured to transmit the packet through the antenna at a determined transmit power (See Par. [44], [99] of Nam for a reference to a configured [Predetermined] transmit power (highest available power) and bandwidth is determined to transmit packets), the processing unit further operative to control the access point to increase the transmit power for each retransmission of the data packet (See Par. [95], [99], [111] of Nam for a reference to controlling power ramping [Increasing Power] for subsequent transmission [Retransmissions]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nam to Da Hasegawa. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by increasing the gain of received packets at the BS through power ramping and beam switching. (Nam; Par. [97])
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xue et al. (US. Pub. No. 2022/0167311 A1) discloses a method for sidelink channel access using virtual collision metrics.
Wang et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0176019 A1) discloses a multi-band transmission method and apparatus.
Nguyen (US. Pub. No. 2020/0221147 A1) discloses a method for video flow control over crowded or congested wireless networks.
9. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to RASHA FAYED whose telephone number is (571) 270-3804. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the supervisory Examiner, Un Cho can be reached on (571)272-7919. 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.
/R.K.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413