Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/23/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-13, 18-27 and 31-37 are pending.
Claims 14-17 and 28-30 are canceled.
Claims 1-13, 18-27 and 31-37 stand rejected.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – 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 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 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-10, 18-19, 21, 23-27, 31-32, 34 and 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel et al. (Patent No.: US 7813324 B1) in view of Baek et al. (Pub. No.: US 20200059817 A1), hereafter respectively referred to as Goel and Baek.
In regard to Claim 1, Goel teaches A method of wireless communication performed by a receiver (Node A 602, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6), comprising: determining that a quantity of a first plurality (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) of radio link control (RLC) protocol data unit (PDU) packets (Each node in network 100 may be a software defined radio (SDR), Col. 3, lines 37-38. Each slot includes a group of data link frames (or cells), Col. 4, lines 32-35, FIG. 6), received from a transmitter (Node B 604, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6), satisfies a first quantity threshold (The values for the number of cells in a slot may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8), wherein the first quantity threshold (The values for the number of cells in a slot may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8) comprises a threshold quantity (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) of RLC PDU packets (Each node in network 100 may be a software defined radio (SDR), Col. 3, lines 37-38. Each slot includes a group of data link frames (or cells), Col. 4, lines 32-35, FIG. 6).
Goel teaches performing a decoding attempt for the first plurality of RLC PDU packets (a Forward Error Correction (FEC) technique implemented in node 200 (shown in FIG. 2). The FEC is an error control system that can correct corrupted data on the receiving end of a data transmission and works on fixed-size blocks of bits. An uncorrected error is detected by the FEC in a slot that includes a RACK (i.e., the slot includes one or more cells that require ARQ), Col. 5, lines 35-46, FIGS. 2, 6. In slot 606, cell 2 is corrupted, Col. 8, lines 27-29, FIG. 6) based at least in part on determining that the quantity of the first plurality of RLC PDU packets satisfies the first quantity threshold (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6. The values for the number of cells in a slot and the number of cells in a group (i.e., the number of cells per ACK) may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8).
Goel teaches transmitting, to the transmitter (Node B 604, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6), an RLC layer feedback report for the first plurality of RLC PDU packets (In the next transmission opportunity, e.g., slot 608, from Node A to Node B, Node A indicates that slot 606 was not correctly received, e.g., nextExpectedSlot=11 via the field 616, Col. 8, lines 35-38, FIG. 6) after receiving a second plurality of RLC PDU packets (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6), wherein the second plurality of RLC PDU packets (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) are received after the first plurality of RLC PDU packets (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6), and wherein the RLC layer feedback report is based at least in part on the decoding attempt (a Forward Error Correction (FEC) technique implemented in node 200 (shown in FIG. 2). The FEC is an error control system that can correct corrupted data on the receiving end of a data transmission and works on fixed-size blocks of bits. An uncorrected error is detected by the FEC in a slot that includes a RACK (i.e., the slot includes one or more cells that require ARQ), Col. 5, lines 35-46, FIGS. 2, 6. In slot 606, cell 2 is corrupted, Col. 8, lines 27-29, FIG. 6).
Although Goel teaches a quantity of a first plurality of radio link control (RLC) protocol data unit (PDU) packets, Goel fails to teach a quantity of a first plurality of packets within an RLC service data unit (SDU), and although Goel teaches the first quantity threshold comprises a threshold quantity of RLC PDU packets, Goel fails to teach wherein the first quantity threshold is signaled to the receiver by the transmitter, and wherein a value of the first quantity threshold is based at least in part on a size of the RLC SDU.
Baek teaches a quantity of a first plurality of packets within an RLC (RLC sublayer, Para. 105. In a system supporting ultra-high-speed transmission such as a 5G communication system, multiple packets may be multiplexed, IP-concatenated, and RLC-concatenated during a TTI as a scheduling unit, Para. 169) service data unit (SDU) (the receiver receives an SDU as concatenated IP packets, Para. 111, FIG. 6. The terminal may decode the total length field (L field) of received downlink packets to recover individual IP packets IP-concatenated in an SDU, Para. 120, 125. After receiving an SDU of concatenated IP packets, the receiver may decode a total length field of the IP header to determine whether the packets are ID-concatenated, Para. 142. The concatenation number denotes a number of IP packets concatenated in the corresponding SDU, Para. 151).
Baek teaches wherein the first quantity threshold is signaled to the receiver by the transmitter (The threshold value may be preconfigured or transmitted from the base station to the terminal, Para. 153, FIG. 19), and wherein a value of the first quantity threshold is based at least in part on a size of the RLC SDU (FIG. 19, the receiver decodes the total length field of an IP header to recover the IP packets only if the size of the received packets (SDU) is less than a predetermined threshold value. In this case, the transmitter is not allowed to perform IP concatenation producing an SDU of a size that is equal to or greater than the threshold value. If the size of the SDU received by the receiver is greater than the threshold value, the receiver may determine that IP concatenation has not been performed, Para. 153, FIG. 19).
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 Baek with the teachings of Goel since Baek provides a technique to inform terminals of threshold values for received SDUs related to decoding packets within SDUs, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Goel to permit terminals to benefit from concatenated packets within SDUs and to obtain threshold values from base stations for decoding the concatenated packets.
In regard to Claim 2, Goel teaches each of the first plurality of RLC PDU packets (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) includes a plurality of forward error correction (FEC) encoded packets (a Forward Error Correction (FEC) technique implemented in node 200 (shown in FIG. 2). The FEC is an error control system that can correct corrupted data on the receiving end of a data transmission and works on fixed-size blocks of bits. An uncorrected error is detected by the FEC in a slot that includes a RACK (i.e., the slot includes one or more cells that require ARQ), Col. 5, lines 35-46, FIGS. 2, 6. The slot based mode of operation may occur when the FEC block size equals a slot, Col. 8, lines 23-25).
In regard to Claim 4, Goel teaches determining that a quantity of the second plurality of RLC PDU packets (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) satisfies a second quantity threshold (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6. The values for the number of cells in a slot and the number of cells in a group (i.e., the number of cells per ACK) may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8); and wherein transmitting the RLC layer feedback report comprises: transmitting, to the transmitter, the RLC layer feedback report (In the next transmission opportunity, e.g., slot 608, from Node A to Node B, Node A indicates that slot 606 was not correctly received, e.g., nextExpectedSlot=11 via the field 616, Col. 8, lines 35-38, FIG. 6) based at least in part on determining that the quantity of the second plurality of RLC PDU packets satisfies the second quantity threshold (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6. The values for the number of cells in a slot and the number of cells in a group (i.e., the number of cells per ACK) may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8).
In regard to Claim 6, Goel teaches the first quantity threshold (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) and the second quantity threshold (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) are correlated and configured together (In the MAC layer, slots are numbered and each slot includes a group of data link frames (or cells), Col. 4, lines 28-32. The values for the number of cells in a slot may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8. Node B identifies slot 606, 640 as requiring acknowledgement, Col. 8, lines 32-35, FIG. 6).
In regard to Claim 7, Goel teaches a value of the second quantity threshold (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) is based at least in part on the value of the first quantity threshold (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6. The values for the number of cells in a slot and the number of cells in a group (i.e., the number of cells per ACK) may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8).
In regard to Claim 8, Goel teaches the first quantity threshold (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6. The values for the number of cells in a slot may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8) and the second quantity threshold (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6. The values for the number of cells in a slot and the number of cells in a group (i.e., the number of cells per ACK) may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8) are configured together in a same RLC configuration (Each node in network 100 may be a software defined radio (SDR), Col. 3, lines 37-38. The scalable and adaptive ARQ is accomplished at the Media Access Control (MAC) layer of the data transmission protocol. In the MAC layer, slots are numbered and each slot includes a group of data link frames (or cells), Col. 4, lines 28-32. The values for the number of cells in a slot may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8).
In regard to Claim 9, Goel teaches the second quantity threshold is 0 RLC PDU packets (In FIG. 4, Node B 404 sends a slot 406 with a group of ten cells 450 (i.e., cells 1-10) to Node A 402, Col. 6, lines 52-54, FIG. 4). [the examiner notes that no second slot with its own group of cells is sent after slot 406 and before receiving slot 410].
In regard to Claim 10, Goel teaches the RLC layer feedback report includes information identifying an acknowledgement (ACK) or a negative acknowledgement (NACK) for an RLC PDU packet (In slot 606, cell 2 is corrupted, Col. 8, lines 27-29, FIG. 6. In the next transmission opportunity, e.g., slot 608, from Node A to Node B, Node A indicates that slot 606 was not correctly received, e.g., nextExpectedSlot=11 via the field 616, Col. 8, lines 35-38, FIG. 6) of the first plurality of RLC PDU packets (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6).
In regard to Claim 18, Goel teaches An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: means for determining that a quantity of a first plurality (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) of radio link control (RLC) protocol data unit (PDU) packets (Each node in network 100 may be a software defined radio (SDR), Col. 3, lines 37-38. Each slot includes a group of data link frames (or cells), Col. 4, lines 32-35, FIG. 6), received from a transmitter (Node B 604, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6), satisfies a first quantity threshold (The values for the number of cells in a slot may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8), wherein the first quantity threshold (The values for the number of cells in a slot may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8) comprises a threshold quantity (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) of RLC PDU packets (Each node in network 100 may be a software defined radio (SDR), Col. 3, lines 37-38. Each slot includes a group of data link frames (or cells), Col. 4, lines 32-35, FIG. 6).
Goel teaches means for performing a decoding attempt for the first plurality of RLC PDU packets (a Forward Error Correction (FEC) technique implemented in node 200 (shown in FIG. 2). The FEC is an error control system that can correct corrupted data on the receiving end of a data transmission and works on fixed-size blocks of bits. An uncorrected error is detected by the FEC in a slot that includes a RACK (i.e., the slot includes one or more cells that require ARQ), Col. 5, lines 35-46, FIGS. 2, 6. In slot 606, cell 2 is corrupted, Col. 8, lines 27-29, FIG. 6) based at least in part on determining that the quantity of the first plurality of RLC PDU packets satisfies the first quantity threshold (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6. The values for the number of cells in a slot and the number of cells in a group (i.e., the number of cells per ACK) may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8).
Goel teaches means for transmitting, to the transmitter (Node B 604, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6), an RLC layer feedback report for the first plurality of RLC PDU packets (In the next transmission opportunity, e.g., slot 608, from Node A to Node B, Node A indicates that slot 606 was not correctly received, e.g., nextExpectedSlot=11 via the field 616, Col. 8, lines 35-38, FIG. 6) after receiving a second plurality of RLC PDU packets from the transmitter (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6), wherein the second plurality of RLC PDU packets are received from the transmitter (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) after receiving the first plurality of RLC PDU packets (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6), and wherein the RLC layer feedback report is based at least in part on the decoding attempt (a Forward Error Correction (FEC) technique implemented in node 200 (shown in FIG. 2). The FEC is an error control system that can correct corrupted data on the receiving end of a data transmission and works on fixed-size blocks of bits. An uncorrected error is detected by the FEC in a slot that includes a RACK (i.e., the slot includes one or more cells that require ARQ), Col. 5, lines 35-46, FIGS. 2, 6. In slot 606, cell 2 is corrupted, Col. 8, lines 27-29, FIG. 6).
Although Goel teaches a quantity of a first plurality of radio link control (RLC) protocol data unit (PDU) packets, Goel fails to teach a quantity of a first plurality of packets within an RLC service data unit (SDU), and although Goel teaches the first quantity threshold comprises a threshold quantity of RLC PDU packets, Goel fails to teach wherein the first quantity threshold is signaled to the receiver by the transmitter, and wherein a value of the first quantity threshold is based at least in part on a size of the RLC SDU.
Baek teaches a quantity of a first plurality of packets within an RLC (RLC sublayer, Para. 105. In a system supporting ultra-high-speed transmission such as a 5G communication system, multiple packets may be multiplexed, IP-concatenated, and RLC-concatenated during a TTI as a scheduling unit, Para. 169) service data unit (SDU) (the receiver receives an SDU as concatenated IP packets, Para. 111, FIG. 6. The terminal may decode the total length field (L field) of received downlink packets to recover individual IP packets IP-concatenated in an SDU, Para. 120, 125. After receiving an SDU of concatenated IP packets, the receiver may decode a total length field of the IP header to determine whether the packets are ID-concatenated, Para. 142. The concatenation number denotes a number of IP packets concatenated in the corresponding SDU, Para. 151).
Baek teaches wherein the first quantity threshold is signaled to the receiver by the transmitter (The threshold value may be preconfigured or transmitted from the base station to the terminal, Para. 153, FIG. 19), and wherein a value of the first quantity threshold is based at least in part on a size of the RLC SDU (FIG. 19, the receiver decodes the total length field of an IP header to recover the IP packets only if the size of the received packets (SDU) is less than a predetermined threshold value. In this case, the transmitter is not allowed to perform IP concatenation producing an SDU of a size that is equal to or greater than the threshold value. If the size of the SDU received by the receiver is greater than the threshold value, the receiver may determine that IP concatenation has not been performed, Para. 153, FIG. 19).
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 Baek with the teachings of Goel since Baek provides a technique to inform terminals of threshold values for received SDUs related to decoding packets within SDUs, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Goel to permit terminals to benefit from concatenated packets within SDUs and to obtain threshold values from base stations for decoding the concatenated packets.
In regard to Claim 19, Goel teaches each of the first plurality of RLC PDU packets (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) includes a plurality of forward error correction (FEC) encoded packets (a Forward Error Correction (FEC) technique implemented in node 200 (shown in FIG. 2). The FEC is an error control system that can correct corrupted data on the receiving end of a data transmission and works on fixed-size blocks of bits. An uncorrected error is detected by the FEC in a slot that includes a RACK (i.e., the slot includes one or more cells that require ARQ), Col. 5, lines 35-46, FIGS. 2, 6. The slot based mode of operation may occur when the FEC block size equals a slot, Col. 8, lines 23-25).
In regard to Claim 21, Goel teaches means for determining that a quantity of the second plurality of RLC PDU packets (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) satisfies a second quantity threshold (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6. The values for the number of cells in a slot and the number of cells in a group (i.e., the number of cells per ACK) may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8); and wherein the means for transmitting the RLC layer feedback report comprise: means for transmitting, to the transmitter, the RLC layer feedback report (In the next transmission opportunity, e.g., slot 608, from Node A to Node B, Node A indicates that slot 606 was not correctly received, e.g., nextExpectedSlot=11 via the field 616, Col. 8, lines 35-38, FIG. 6) based at least in part on determining that the quantity of the second plurality of RLC PDU packets satisfies the second quantity threshold (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6. The values for the number of cells in a slot and the number of cells in a group (i.e., the number of cells per ACK) may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8).
In regard to Claim 23, Goel teaches the first quantity threshold (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) and the second quantity threshold (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) are correlated and configured together (In the MAC layer, slots are numbered and each slot includes a group of data link frames (or cells), Col. 4, lines 28-32. The values for the number of cells in a slot may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8. Node B identifies slot 606, 640 as requiring acknowledgement, Col. 8, lines 32-35, FIG. 6).
In regard to Claim 24, Goel teaches a value of the second quantity threshold (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) is based at least in part on the value of the first quantity threshold (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6. The values for the number of cells in a slot and the number of cells in a group (i.e., the number of cells per ACK) may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8).
In regard to Claim 25, Goel teaches the first quantity threshold (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6. The values for the number of cells in a slot may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8) and the second quantity threshold (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6. The values for the number of cells in a slot and the number of cells in a group (i.e., the number of cells per ACK) may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8) are configured together in a same RLC configuration (Each node in network 100 may be a software defined radio (SDR), Col. 3, lines 37-38. The scalable and adaptive ARQ is accomplished at the Media Access Control (MAC) layer of the data transmission protocol. In the MAC layer, slots are numbered and each slot includes a group of data link frames (or cells), Col. 4, lines 28-32. The values for the number of cells in a slot may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8), and wherein the size of the RLC SDU is associated with the first plurality (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) of RLC PDU packets (Each node in network 100 may be a software defined radio (SDR), Col. 3, lines 37-38. Each slot includes a group of data link frames (or cells), Col. 4, lines 32-35, FIG. 6).
In regard to Claim 26, Goel teaches the second quantity threshold is 0 RLC PDU packets (In FIG. 4, Node B 404 sends a slot 406 with a group of ten cells 450 (i.e., cells 1-10) to Node A 402, Col. 6, lines 52-54, FIG. 4). [the examiner notes that no second slot with its own group of cells is sent after slot 406 and before receiving slot 410].
In regard to Claim 27, Goel teaches the RLC layer feedback report includes information identifying an acknowledgement (ACK) or a negative acknowledgement (NACK) for an RLC PDU packet (In slot 606, cell 2 is corrupted, Col. 8, lines 27-29, FIG. 6. In the next transmission opportunity, e.g., slot 608, from Node A to Node B, Node A indicates that slot 606 was not correctly received, e.g., nextExpectedSlot=11 via the field 616, Col. 8, lines 35-38, FIG. 6) of the first plurality of RLC PDU packets (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6).
In regard to Claim 31, Goel teaches A receiver (Node A 602, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories (memory 210, Col. 3, lines 65-67); and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (Control circuit 208 may execute sequences of instructions contained in memory 210, Col. 3, lines 65-67), which are configured, individually or in any combination, to: determine that a quantity of a first plurality (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) of radio link control (RLC) protocol data unit (PDU) packets (Each node in network 100 may be a software defined radio (SDR), Col. 3, lines 37-38. Each slot includes a group of data link frames (or cells), Col. 4, lines 32-35, FIG. 6), received from a transmitter (Node B 604, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6), satisfies a first quantity threshold (The values for the number of cells in a slot may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8), wherein the first quantity threshold (The values for the number of cells in a slot may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8) comprises a threshold quantity (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) of RLC PDU packets (Each node in network 100 may be a software defined radio (SDR), Col. 3, lines 37-38. Each slot includes a group of data link frames (or cells), Col. 4, lines 32-35, FIG. 6).
Goel teaches perform a decoding attempt for the first plurality of RLC PDU packets (a Forward Error Correction (FEC) technique implemented in node 200 (shown in FIG. 2). The FEC is an error control system that can correct corrupted data on the receiving end of a data transmission and works on fixed-size blocks of bits. An uncorrected error is detected by the FEC in a slot that includes a RACK (i.e., the slot includes one or more cells that require ARQ), Col. 5, lines 35-46, FIGS. 2, 6. In slot 606, cell 2 is corrupted, Col. 8, lines 27-29, FIG. 6) based at least in part on determining that the quantity of the first plurality of RLC PDU packets satisfies the first quantity threshold (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6. The values for the number of cells in a slot and the number of cells in a group (i.e., the number of cells per ACK) may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8).
Goel teaches transmit, to the transmitter (Node B 604, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6), an RLC layer feedback report for the first plurality of RLC PDU packets (In the next transmission opportunity, e.g., slot 608, from Node A to Node B, Node A indicates that slot 606 was not correctly received, e.g., nextExpectedSlot=11 via the field 616, Col. 8, lines 35-38, FIG. 6) after receiving a second plurality of RLC PDU packets (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6), wherein the second plurality of RLC PDU packets (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) are received after the first plurality of RLC PDU packets (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6), and wherein the RLC layer feedback report is based at least in part on the decoding attempt (a Forward Error Correction (FEC) technique implemented in node 200 (shown in FIG. 2). The FEC is an error control system that can correct corrupted data on the receiving end of a data transmission and works on fixed-size blocks of bits. An uncorrected error is detected by the FEC in a slot that includes a RACK (i.e., the slot includes one or more cells that require ARQ), Col. 5, lines 35-46, FIGS. 2, 6. In slot 606, cell 2 is corrupted, Col. 8, lines 27-29, FIG. 6).
Although Goel teaches a quantity of a first plurality of radio link control (RLC) protocol data unit (PDU) packets, Goel fails to teach a quantity of a first plurality of packets within an RLC service data unit (SDU), and although Goel teaches, the first quantity threshold comprises a threshold quantity of RLC PDU packets, Goel fails to teach wherein the first quantity threshold is signaled to the receiver by the transmitter, and wherein a value of the first quantity threshold is based at least in part on a size of the RLC SDU.
Baek teaches a quantity of a first plurality of packets within an RLC (RLC sublayer, Para. 105. In a system supporting ultra-high-speed transmission such as a 5G communication system, multiple packets may be multiplexed, IP-concatenated, and RLC-concatenated during a TTI as a scheduling unit, Para. 169) service data unit (SDU) (the receiver receives an SDU as concatenated IP packets, Para. 111, FIG. 6. The terminal may decode the total length field (L field) of received downlink packets to recover individual IP packets IP-concatenated in an SDU, Para. 120, 125. After receiving an SDU of concatenated IP packets, the receiver may decode a total length field of the IP header to determine whether the packets are ID-concatenated, Para. 142. The concatenation number denotes a number of IP packets concatenated in the corresponding SDU, Para. 151).
Baek teaches wherein the first quantity threshold is signaled to the receiver by the transmitter (The threshold value may be preconfigured or transmitted from the base station to the terminal, Para. 153, FIG. 19), and wherein a value of the first quantity threshold is based at least in part on a size of the RLC SDU (FIG. 19, the receiver decodes the total length field of an IP header to recover the IP packets only if the size of the received packets (SDU) is less than a predetermined threshold value. In this case, the transmitter is not allowed to perform IP concatenation producing an SDU of a size that is equal to or greater than the threshold value. If the size of the SDU received by the receiver is greater than the threshold value, the receiver may determine that IP concatenation has not been performed, Para. 153, FIG. 19).
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 Baek with the teachings of Goel since Baek provides a technique to inform terminals of threshold values for received SDUs related to decoding packets within SDUs, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Goel to permit terminals to benefit from concatenated packets within SDUs and to obtain threshold values from base stations for decoding the concatenated packets.
In regard to Claim 32, Goel teaches each of the first plurality of RLC PDU packets (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) includes a plurality of forward error correction (FEC) encoded packets (a Forward Error Correction (FEC) technique implemented in node 200 (shown in FIG. 2). The FEC is an error control system that can correct corrupted data on the receiving end of a data transmission and works on fixed-size blocks of bits. An uncorrected error is detected by the FEC in a slot that includes a RACK (i.e., the slot includes one or more cells that require ARQ), Col. 5, lines 35-46, FIGS. 2, 6. The slot based mode of operation may occur when the FEC block size equals a slot, Col. 8, lines 23-25).
In regard to Claim 34, Goel teaches the one or more processors are further configured to cause the receiver to: determine that a quantity of the second plurality of RLC PDU packets (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) satisfies a second quantity threshold (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6. The values for the number of cells in a slot and the number of cells in a group (i.e., the number of cells per ACK) may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8); and wherein the one or more processors, to cause the receiver to transmit the RLC layer feedback report, are configured to cause the receiver to: transmit, to the transmitter, the RLC layer feedback report (In the next transmission opportunity, e.g., slot 608, from Node A to Node B, Node A indicates that slot 606 was not correctly received, e.g., nextExpectedSlot=11 via the field 616, Col. 8, lines 35-38, FIG. 6) based at least in part on determining that the quantity of the second plurality of RLC PDU packets satisfies the second quantity threshold (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6. The values for the number of cells in a slot and the number of cells in a group (i.e., the number of cells per ACK) may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8).
In regard to Claim 36, as presented in the rejection of Claim 1, Goel teaches a method.
Goel fails to teach wherein a set of multiple packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) PDUs is concatenated into the RLC SDU based at least in part on a size of the set of multiple PDCP PDUs being less than or equal to a size threshold.
Baek teaches wherein a set of multiple packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) PDUs is concatenated into the RLC SDU based at least in part on a size of the set of multiple PDCP PDUs being less than or equal to a size threshold (FIG. 20 is a diagram illustrating an exemplary format of a PDCP header (L2 Header) including a concatenation indicator (CI) and a concatenation number (number of concatenated packets (NCP)), Para. 163, FIG. 20. Perform an IP-concatenated packet de-concatenation procedure if a size of received packets (SDU) is greater than a threshold value, Para. 155. Perform an IP-concatenated packet de-concatenation procedure if a size of received packets (SDU) is less than a threshold value, Para. 156).
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 Baek with the teachings of Goel since Baek provides a technique to inform terminals of threshold values for received SDUs related to decoding packets within SDUs, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Goel to permit terminals to benefit from concatenated packets within SDUs and to obtain threshold values from base stations for decoding the concatenated packets.
In regard to Claim 37, Goel teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions (sequences of instructions contained in memory 210, Col. 3, lines 65-67) for wireless communication, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a receiver (Control circuit 208 may execute sequences of instructions contained in memory 210, Col. 3, lines 65-67), cause the receiver to: determine that a quantity of a first plurality (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) of radio link control (RLC) protocol data unit (PDU) packets (Each node in network 100 may be a software defined radio (SDR), Col. 3, lines 37-38. Each slot includes a group of data link frames (or cells), Col. 4, lines 32-35, FIG. 6), received from a transmitter (Node B 604, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6), satisfies a first quantity threshold (The values for the number of cells in a slot may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8), wherein the first quantity threshold (The values for the number of cells in a slot may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8) comprises a threshold quantity (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) of RLC PDU packets (Each node in network 100 may be a software defined radio (SDR), Col. 3, lines 37-38. Each slot includes a group of data link frames (or cells), Col. 4, lines 32-35, FIG. 6).
Goel teaches perform a decoding attempt for the first plurality of RLC PDU packets (a Forward Error Correction (FEC) technique implemented in node 200 (shown in FIG. 2). The FEC is an error control system that can correct corrupted data on the receiving end of a data transmission and works on fixed-size blocks of bits. An uncorrected error is detected by the FEC in a slot that includes a RACK (i.e., the slot includes one or more cells that require ARQ), Col. 5, lines 35-46, FIGS. 2, 6. In slot 606, cell 2 is corrupted, Col. 8, lines 27-29, FIG. 6) based at least in part on determining that the quantity of the first plurality of RLC PDU packets satisfies the first quantity threshold (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6. The values for the number of cells in a slot and the number of cells in a group (i.e., the number of cells per ACK) may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8).
Goel teaches transmit, to the transmitter (Node B 604, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6), an RLC layer feedback report for the first plurality of RLC PDU packets (In the next transmission opportunity, e.g., slot 608, from Node A to Node B, Node A indicates that slot 606 was not correctly received, e.g., nextExpectedSlot=11 via the field 616, Col. 8, lines 35-38, FIG. 6) after receiving a second plurality of RLC PDU packets (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6), wherein the second plurality of RLC PDU packets (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) are received after the first plurality of RLC PDU packets (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6), and wherein the RLC layer feedback report is based at least in part on the decoding attempt (a Forward Error Correction (FEC) technique implemented in node 200 (shown in FIG. 2). The FEC is an error control system that can correct corrupted data on the receiving end of a data transmission and works on fixed-size blocks of bits. An uncorrected error is detected by the FEC in a slot that includes a RACK (i.e., the slot includes one or more cells that require ARQ), Col. 5, lines 35-46, FIGS. 2, 6. In slot 606, cell 2 is corrupted, Col. 8, lines 27-29, FIG. 6).
Although Goel teaches a quantity of a first plurality of radio link control (RLC) protocol data unit (PDU) packets, Goel fails to teach a quantity of a first plurality of packets within an RLC service data unit (SDU), and although Goel teaches wherein the first quantity threshold comprises a threshold quantity of RLC PDU packets, Goel fails to teach wherein the first quantity threshold is signaled to the receiver by the transmitter.
Baek teaches a quantity of a first plurality of packets within an RLC (RLC sublayer, Para. 105. In a system supporting ultra-high-speed transmission such as a 5G communication system, multiple packets may be multiplexed, IP-concatenated, and RLC-concatenated during a TTI as a scheduling unit, Para. 169) service data unit (SDU) (the receiver receives an SDU as concatenated IP packets, Para. 111, FIG. 6. The terminal may decode the total length field (L field) of received downlink packets to recover individual IP packets IP-concatenated in an SDU, Para. 120, 125. After receiving an SDU of concatenated IP packets, the receiver may decode a total length field of the IP header to determine whether the packets are ID-concatenated, Para. 142. The concatenation number denotes a number of IP packets concatenated in the corresponding SDU, Para. 151).
Baek teaches wherein the first quantity threshold is signaled to the receiver by the transmitter (The threshold value may be preconfigured or transmitted from the base station to the terminal, Para. 153, FIG. 19), and wherein a value of the first quantity threshold is based at least in part on a size of the RLC SDU (FIG. 19, the receiver decodes the total length field of an IP header to recover the IP packets only if the size of the received packets (SDU) is less than a predetermined threshold value. In this case, the transmitter is not allowed to perform IP concatenation producing an SDU of a size that is equal to or greater than the threshold value. If the size of the SDU received by the receiver is greater than the threshold value, the receiver may determine that IP concatenation has not been performed, Para. 153, FIG. 19).
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 Baek with the teachings of Goel since Baek provides a technique to inform terminals of threshold values for received SDUs related to decoding packets within SDUs, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Goel to permit terminals to benefit from concatenated packets within SDUs and to obtain threshold values from base stations for decoding the concatenated packets.
Claim(s) 3, 20 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel in view of Baek, and further in view of Kimura et al. (Pub. No.: US 20220131559 A1), hereafter referred to as Kimura.
In regard to Claim 3, Goel teaches the plurality of FEC encoded packets (The FEC is an error control system that can correct corrupted data on the receiving end of a data transmission and works on fixed-size blocks of bits. An uncorrected error is detected by the FEC in a slot that includes a RACK (i.e., the slot includes one or more cells that require ARQ), Col. 5, lines 35-46, FIGS. 2, 6. In slot 606, cell 2 is corrupted, Col. 8, lines 27-29, FIG. 6), included in each of the first plurality of RLC PDU packets (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6).
Goel in view of Baek fails to teach FEC encoded using a rateless network code.
Kimura teaches the plurality of FEC encoded packets are FEC encoded using a rateless network code (For FEC in the upper layer by the upper layer FEC encoding unit 301, it is desirable to apply the FEC belonging to types of FEC codes having a capability of erasure correction, rate-less codes (Rateless Codes), Para. 59, FIG. 3).
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 Kimura with the teachings of Goel in view of Baek since Kimura provides a technique for utilizing rateless codes of FEC codes, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Goel in view of Baek to permit efficient coding and decoding for prompt FEC processing in wireless conditions that are provided by rateless codes.
In regard to Claim 20, Goel teaches the plurality of FEC encoded packets (The FEC is an error control system that can correct corrupted data on the receiving end of a data transmission and works on fixed-size blocks of bits. An uncorrected error is detected by the FEC in a slot that includes a RACK (i.e., the slot includes one or more cells that require ARQ), Col. 5, lines 35-46, FIGS. 2, 6. In slot 606, cell 2 is corrupted, Col. 8, lines 27-29, FIG. 6), included in each of the first plurality of RLC PDU packets (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6).
Goel in view of Baek fails to teach FEC encoded using a rateless network code.
Kimura teaches the plurality of FEC encoded packets are FEC encoded using a rateless network code (For FEC in the upper layer by the upper layer FEC encoding unit 301, it is desirable to apply the FEC belonging to types of FEC codes having a capability of erasure correction, rate-less codes (Rateless Codes), Para. 59, FIG. 3).
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 Kimura with the teachings of Goel in view of Baek since Kimura provides a technique for utilizing rateless codes of FEC codes, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Goel in view of Baek to permit efficient coding and decoding for prompt FEC processing in wireless conditions that are provided by rateless codes.
In regard to Claim 33, Goel teaches the plurality of FEC encoded packets (The FEC is an error control system that can correct corrupted data on the receiving end of a data transmission and works on fixed-size blocks of bits. An uncorrected error is detected by the FEC in a slot that includes a RACK (i.e., the slot includes one or more cells that require ARQ), Col. 5, lines 35-46, FIGS. 2, 6. In slot 606, cell 2 is corrupted, Col. 8, lines 27-29, FIG. 6), included in each of the first plurality of RLC PDU packets (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6).
Goel in view of Baek fails to teach FEC encoded using a rateless network code.
Kimura teaches the plurality of FEC encoded packets are FEC encoded using a rateless network code (For FEC in the upper layer by the upper layer FEC encoding unit 301, it is desirable to apply the FEC belonging to types of FEC codes having a capability of erasure correction, rate-less codes (Rateless Codes), Para. 59, FIG. 3).
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 Kimura with the teachings of Goel in view of Baek since Kimura provides a technique for utilizing rateless codes of FEC codes, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Goel in view of Baek to permit efficient coding and decoding for prompt FEC processing in wireless conditions that are provided by rateless codes.
Claim(s) 5, 22 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel in view of Baek, and further in view of Sammour et al. (Pub. No.: US 20090149189 A1), hereafter referred to as Sammour.
In regard to Claim 5, Goel teaches the first quantity threshold (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) and the second quantity threshold (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) are associated with an RLC layer configuration (Each node in network 100 may be a software defined radio (SDR), Col. 3, lines 37-38. The scalable and adaptive ARQ is accomplished at the Media Access Control (MAC) layer of the data transmission protocol. In the MAC layer, slots are numbered and each slot includes a group of data link frames (or cells), Col. 4, lines 28-32. The values for the number of cells in a slot may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8).
Goel in view of Baek fails to teach wherein the RLC layer configuration is configured at a radio resource control (RRC) layer for the receiver.
Sammour teaches wherein the RLC layer configuration is configured at a radio resource control (RRC) layer for the receiver (The RRC sublayer provides PDCP and RLC configuration parameters for the SRB and data radio blocks (DRBs) as part of the radio resource configuration for configuration of the PDCP and RLC, Para. 13).
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 Sammour with the teachings of Goel in view of Baek since Sammour provides a technique for utilizing RRC to configure RLC parameters, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Goel in view of Baek to permit configuration of characteristics in the link layer communications to be optimized according to wireless radio conditions.
In regard to Claim 22, Goel teaches the first quantity threshold (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) and the second quantity threshold (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) are associated with an RLC layer configuration (Each node in network 100 may be a software defined radio (SDR), Col. 3, lines 37-38. The scalable and adaptive ARQ is accomplished at the Media Access Control (MAC) layer of the data transmission protocol. In the MAC layer, slots are numbered and each slot includes a group of data link frames (or cells), Col. 4, lines 28-32. The values for the number of cells in a slot may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8).
Goel in view of Baek fails to teach wherein the RLC layer configuration is configured at a radio resource control (RRC) layer for the apparatus.
Sammour teaches wherein the RLC layer configuration is configured at a radio resource control (RRC) layer for the apparatus (The RRC sublayer provides PDCP and RLC configuration parameters for the SRB and data radio blocks (DRBs) as part of the radio resource configuration for configuration of the PDCP and RLC, Para. 13).
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 Sammour with the teachings of Goel in view of Baek since Sammour provides a technique for utilizing RRC to configure RLC parameters, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Goel in view of Baek to permit configuration of characteristics in the link layer communications to be optimized according to wireless radio conditions.
In regard to Claim 35, Goel teaches the first quantity threshold (slot 606, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) and the second quantity threshold (slot 640, with ten (10) cells, Col. 8, lines 25-27, FIG. 6) are associated with an RLC layer configuration (Each node in network 100 may be a software defined radio (SDR), Col. 3, lines 37-38. The scalable and adaptive ARQ is accomplished at the Media Access Control (MAC) layer of the data transmission protocol. In the MAC layer, slots are numbered and each slot includes a group of data link frames (or cells), Col. 4, lines 28-32. The values for the number of cells in a slot may be designated in a communications plan (COMPLAN), Col. 6, lines 5-8).
Goel in view of Baek fails to teach wherein the RLC layer configuration is configured at a radio resource control (RRC) layer for the receiver.
Sammour teaches wherein the RLC layer configuration is configured at a radio resource control (RRC) layer for the receiver (The RRC sublayer provides PDCP and RLC configuration parameters for the SRB and data radio blocks (DRBs) as part of the radio resource configuration for configuration of the PDCP and RLC, Para. 13).
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 Sammour with the teachings of Goel in view of Baek since Sammour provides a technique for utilizing RRC to configure RLC parameters, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Goel in view of Baek to permit configuration of characteristics in the link layer communications to be optimized according to wireless radio conditions.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel in view of Baek, and further in view of Avudainayagam et al. (Pub. No.: US 20150138999 A1), hereafter referred to as Avudainayagam.
In regard to Claim 11, Goel teaches the RLC layer feedback report (In the next transmission opportunity, e.g., slot 608, from Node A to Node B, Node A indicates that slot 606 was not correctly received, e.g., nextExpectedSlot=11 via the field 616, Col. 8, lines 35-38, FIG. 6).
Goel in view of Baek fails to teach the feedback report includes information identifying a quantity of failed RLC PDU packets, of the first plurality of RLC PDU packets, for the decoding attempt.
Avudainayagam teaches the feedback report includes information identifying a quantity of failed RLC PDU packets (The ACK data 280 may be referred to as a selective acknowledgement (SACK) message. The SACK message may comprise of a block acknowledgement (BA) bitmap where each bit represents an acknowledgment or negative acknowledgment of one or more FEC encoded blocks. In the BA bitmap, a "1" may indicate successful reception and a "0" may indicate an error in that FEC encoded block, Para. 36, FIG. 2), of the first plurality of RLC PDU packets (A communication system may limit a burst of PPDUs to 50 FEC encoded blocks, Para. 72), for the decoding attempt (a receiving device to selectively acknowledge which of the FEC encoded blocks has been decoded correctly, Para. 36, FIG. 2).
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 Avudainayagam with the teachings of Goel in view of Baek since Avudainayagam provides a technique for selectively acknowledging or negatively acknowledging a number of FEC encoded blocks through bits within a single message, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Goel in view of Baek to permit a node specify a number of cells within a slot that are corrupted and failed to be decoded.
In regard to Claim 12, Goel teaches the RLC layer feedback report (In the next transmission opportunity, e.g., slot 608, from Node A to Node B, Node A indicates that slot 606 was not correctly received, e.g., nextExpectedSlot=11 via the field 616, Col. 8, lines 35-38, FIG. 6).
Goel in view of Baek fails to teach the feedback report includes information identifying a quantity of failed forward error correction (FEC) encoded packets, included in an RLC PDU packet of the first plurality of RLC PDU packets, for the decoding attempt.
Avudainayagam teaches the feedback report includes information identifying a quantity of failed forward error correction (FEC) encoded packets (The ACK data 280 may be referred to as a selective acknowledgement (SACK) message. The SACK message may comprise of a block acknowledgement (BA) bitmap where each bit represents an acknowledgment or negative acknowledgment of one or more FEC encoded blocks. In the BA bitmap, a "1" may indicate successful reception and a "0" may indicate an error in that FEC encoded block, Para. 36, FIG. 2), included in an RLC PDU packet (a physical layer (PHY) protocol data unit (PPDU) that includes multiple FEC encoded blocks, Para. 5) of the first plurality of RLC PDU packets (A communication system may limit a burst of PPDUs to 50 FEC encoded blocks, Para. 72), for the decoding attempt (a receiving device to selectively acknowledge which of the FEC encoded blocks has been decoded correctly, Para. 36, FIG. 2).
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 Avudainayagam with the teachings of Goel in view of Baek since Avudainayagam provides a technique for selectively acknowledging or negatively acknowledging a number of FEC encoded blocks through bits within a single message, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Goel in view of Baek to permit a node specify a number of cells within a slot that are corrupted and failed to be decoded.
In regard to Claim 13, Goel teaches the RLC layer feedback report (In the next transmission opportunity, e.g., slot 608, from Node A to Node B, Node A indicates that slot 606 was not correctly received, e.g., nextExpectedSlot=11 via the field 616, Col. 8, lines 35-38, FIG. 6).
Goel in view of Baek fails to teach the feedback report includes information identifying an index associated with a failed forward error correction (FEC) encoded packet, included in an RLC PDU packet of the first plurality of RLC PDU packets, for the decoding attempt.
Avudainayagam teaches the feedback report includes information identifying an index associated with a failed forward error correction (FEC) encoded packet (The ACK data 280 may be referred to as a selective acknowledgement (SACK) message. The SACK message may comprise of a block acknowledgement (BA) bitmap where each bit represents an acknowledgment or negative acknowledgment of one or more FEC encoded blocks. In the BA bitmap, a "1" may indicate successful reception and a "0" may indicate an error in that FEC encoded block, Para. 36, FIG. 2), included in an RLC PDU packet (a physical layer (PHY) protocol data unit (PPDU) that includes multiple FEC encoded blocks, Para. 5) of the first plurality of RLC PDU packets (A communication system may limit a burst of PPDUs to 50 FEC encoded blocks, Para. 72), for the decoding attempt (a receiving device to selectively acknowledge which of the FEC encoded blocks has been decoded correctly, Para. 36, FIG. 2).
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 Avudainayagam with the teachings of Goel in view of Baek since Avudainayagam provides a technique for selectively acknowledging or negatively acknowledging a number of FEC encoded blocks through bits within a single message, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Goel in view of Baek to permit a node specify a number of cells within a slot that are corrupted and failed to be decoded.
Response to Arguments
I. Arguments for the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Page 12 of the Remarks presents the argument that For example, GOEL and LEE do not disclose or suggest "determining that a quantity of a first plurality of radio link control (RLC) protocol data unit (PDU) packets, received from a transmitter and within an RLC service data unit (SDU), satisfies a first quantity threshold" and "wherein a value of the first quantity threshold is based at least in part on a size of the RLC SDU," as recited in amended claim 1. This argument is not persuasive. The limitations introduced by the amendment of Claims 1, 18, 31 and 37, which is not taught by Goel, are taught by Baek et al. (Pub. No.: US 20200059817 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA Y SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:30am-7pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHIRAG G SHAH can be reached at (571)272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Joshua Smith
/J.S./
3-16-2026
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477