DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Claims
The office action is in response to the claim amendments and remarks filed on October 24, 2025 for the application filed December 22, 2022. Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreas Bergström et al. (US20180317156A1) hereinafter Andreas, in view of Johansson et al. (US6473399B1), Jo et al. (US20200344004A1), and Murakami et al. (JP2006203649A).
Regarding claim 1, Andreas teaches a system comprising: a first network node comprising: a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (Paragraph [0105]: In a particular example, the relay node 10 comprises a processor 120 and a memory 130, the memory comprising instructions executable by the processor, in order to control the relay. Paragraph [0107]: In this particular example, at least some of the steps, functions, procedures, modules and/or blocks described herein are implemented in a computer program, which is loaded into the memory for execution by processing circuitry including one or more processors.)
transmit one or more data packets stored in a buffer to a second network node (Paragraph [0061]: The proposed technology provides a method performed by a relay node in a wireless network adapted for multi-hop routing of data packets. The method comprises the step of storing S1 a data packet received from a preceding relay node, PRN, in the network in a data packet buffer. The method also comprises the step of transmitting S2 the buffered data packet towards a succeeding relay node, SRN, in the network.)
determine whether or not a re-transmission of the one or more data packets is required; re-transmit the one or more data packets to the second network node, based on determining that the re-transmission is required; and clear the one or more data packets from the buffer, based on determining that the re-transmission is not required; wherein the at least one processor of the first network node is configured to execute the instructions to re-transmit the one or more data packets by: determining the one or more data packets to be re-transmitted (Paragraph [0062]: The proposed technology provides a mechanism whereby the data packet may be stored for a particular duration in order to ensure that a possible subsequent data packet loss or data packet corruption in the relay network does not necessitate a new retransmission of the data packet all the way from the source node. The method instead provides a way whereby a subsequent data packet loss or data packet corruption, which causes the issuance of a Negative Acknowledgement, NACK, message, may be countered by a retransmission of the data packet from the data packet buffer of a relay node that is close to the node issuing the NACK message. The proposed method moreover provides a way to determine whether the data packet should be flushed from the data packet buffer in order not to burden the buffer resources unnecessarily. Paragraph [0081]: The particular embodiment provides a way whereby a data packet is stored for a duration that optimizes the possibility that the data packet is present in the data packet buffer and ready to be retransmitted from the relay node when the RNACK is received. The embodiment also ascertains that the data packet is not stored for an unnecessarily long time, something that may negatively affect the relay nodes ability to receive new data packets. Paragraph [0115]: According to a particular embodiment of the proposed technology there is provided a relay node 100 wherein the relay node 100 is configured to forward the data packet by retransmitting the data packet stored in the data packet buffer to a replacement relay node, RRN.)
and based on determining that the value of the counter is greater than the first pre- defined value, clear the determined one or more data packets from the buffer (Paragraph [0071]: According to a particular example, a data packet, such as a PDU, may be removed from the buffer of the relay node receiving the RACK only if the counter is above, or possibly equal to, a certain first threshold value. Paragraph [0081]: The particular embodiment provides a way whereby a data packet is stored for a duration that optimizes the possibility that the data packet is present in the data packet buffer and ready to be retransmitted from the relay node when the RNACK is received. The embodiment also ascertains that the data packet is not stored for an unnecessarily long time, something that may negatively affect the relay nodes ability to receive new data packets. Paragraph [0102]: According to yet another embodiment of the proposed technology there is provided a relay node 10 wherein the relay node 10 is configured to flush the data packet from the buffer based on a comparison between the measure and a first pre-determined threshold value.)
Andreas does not explicitly teach determining whether or not a first condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; based on determining that the first condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node.
However, Johansson teaches determining whether or not a first condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; based on determining that the first condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node (Abstract: During a communication between first and second communications nodes, the first node receives a sequence of data units transmitted from the second node. The first communications node determines that one or more of the transmitted data units was either not received at all or was erroneously received (i.e., corrupted). The first node then sends a request to the second node to retransmit the one or more data units not received or erroneously received. A retransmit timer is started when the retransmission request is sent. The retransmit timer accounts for the delay time period required for the retransmit request to reach the second node, for the second node to retransmit the requested data units, and for the retransmitted data units to reach the first node. When the timer indicates that the delay time period has occurred/expired, a counter is started. Based on the counter's value, a determination is made whether all of the data units requested to be retransmitted have been properly received. Col 1 lines 47-50: In particular, the timer may be started when the data unit is transmitted. If the timer expires before receiving a positive acknowledgment, the data unit is automatically retransmitted. Col 2 lines 50-59: When the timer indicates that the delay time period is over, a counter is started. Based on the counter's value, a determination is made whether all of the data units requested to be retransmitted has been properly received. If the determination indicates that the requested one or more data units has been retransmitted and properly received, no further action is taken. On the other hand, if the requested one or more data units to be retransmitted is not received or is erroneously received, the above-described procedure is repeated. Col 5 lines 18-30: When the data unit count value reaches the number of data units that were requested to be retransmitted, the communications unit 14 determines if the requested data units to be transmit have been properly received (block 34). If so, the communications unit 14 continues to receive new data units from communications unit 12. Optionally, communications unit 14 may send a positive acknowledgment to communications unit 12 that the requested data units have been properly received. On the other hand, if any one of the requested data units to be transmit is not properly received by the time the data unit counter reaches the appropriate count value, the retransmission timer and the counter are reset (block 36), and the procedures beginning at block 26 are repeated.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide determining whether or not a first condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; based on determining that the first condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node, as taught by Johansson in the system of Andreas, so that an optimum balance can be achieved between waiting too long to request a retransmission and requesting retransmissions before the data units have had a chance to be received (Johansson: Col 3, lines 12-28).
The combination of Andreas and Johansson does not explicitly teach re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node and increasing a value of a counter corresponding to a number of attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets; determining whether or not the value of the counter is greater than a number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets; and based on determining that the value of the counter is greater than the number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets, reset the value of the counter.
However, Jo teaches re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node and increasing a value of a counter corresponding to a number of attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets; determining whether or not the value of the counter is greater than a number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets; and based on determining that the value of the counter is greater than the number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets, reset the value of the counter (Paragraph [0123]: Referring to FIG. 9, the transmission end may re-transmit a data unit to a reception end in S901. And then, the transmission end may increase a retransmission counter associated with the data unit, in S903. Especially, when the data unit is not pending for retransmission already and the retransmission counter associated with the data unit has not been incremented due to another negative acknowledgment, the transmission end may increase a retransmission counter associated with the data unit in S903. Paragraph [0124]: Next, in S905, the transmission end may determine whether the retransmission counter associated with the data unit reaches to a max value or not. If the retransmission counter associated with the data unit reaches to the max value, the transmission end may report a max retransmission indication to an upper layer in S907 and set the retransmission counter associated with the data unit to zero in S909.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node and increasing a value of a counter corresponding to a number of attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets; determining whether or not the value of the counter is greater than a number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets; and based on determining that the value of the counter is greater than the number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets, reset the value of the counter, as taught by Jo in the combined system of Andreas and Johansson, so that a method of managing a retransmission counter in a wireless communication system would indicate that a maximum number of retransmissions has been reached. This would help overcome delays and latencies in critical applications (Jo: Paragraphs [0002], [0099], [0100], [0123], [0124]).
The combination of Andreas, Johansson, and Jo does not explicitly teach based on determining that the value of the counter is greater than the number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets, clear the determined one or more data packets from the buffer and reset the value of the counter.
However, Murakami teaches based on determining that the value of the counter is greater than the number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets, clear the determined one or more data packets from the buffer and reset the value of the counter (Page 12, Paragraphs 6-10: (Embodiment 3) FIG. 5 is a diagram showing the configuration of the third embodiment. In the configuration of FIG. 5, a counter 0301 and a buffer clear control unit 0303 are newly added to the transmission side (FIG. 25) of the conventional wireless video transmission apparatus. Reference numeral 0301 denotes a counter, which increments the number of retransmissions when the retransmission request signal 0110 becomes active, outputs the number of retransmissions to the retransmission number information signal 0302, and sets the number of retransmissions to zero when the buffer clear request signal 0304 becomes active. Reference numeral 0303 denotes a buffer clear control unit, which activates the buffer clear request signal 0304 when the retransmission number information signal 0302 matches the clear determination count 0305. The video transmission buffer 0120 deletes all stored data when the buffer clear request signal 0304 is active. The operation of the wireless video transmission apparatus according to Embodiment 3 configured as described above will be described below with reference to FIGS. In FIG. 6, the clear determination count 0305 outputs 4. Stored data B is data stored in the video transmission buffer 0120. Each time retransmission request signal 0110 becomes active, the number of retransmissions of counter 0301 is incremented, and the number of retransmissions is output from retransmission number information signal 0302. When the retransmission is repeated and the retransmission number information signal 0302 becomes 4, the buffer clear control unit 0303 activates the buffer clear request signal 0304. The video transmission buffer 0120 detects that the buffer clear request signal 0304 is active, and erases all stored data B. The counter 0301 detects that the buffer clear request signal 0304 is active, and sets the number of retransmissions to zero. By the above operation, when the number of retransmissions reaches a specific number, the data stored in the video transmission buffer 0120 is erased.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide based on determining that the value of the counter is greater than the number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets, clear the determined one or more data packets from the buffer and reset the value of the counter, as taught by Murakami in the combined system of Andreas, Johansson, and Jo, so that retransmission of obsolete or outdated data can be avoided (Murakami: Page 12, Paragraphs 6-10).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Andreas, Johansson, Jo, and Murakami teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one processor of the first network node is configured to execute the instructions to re-transmit the one or more data packets by: (see rejection for claim 1);
The combination of Andreas, Jo, and Murakami does not explicitly teach determining whether or not a second condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; and based on determining that the second condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node.
However, Johansson teaches determining whether or not a second condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; and based on determining that the second condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node (Col 2 lines 36-43: During a communication between first and second communications nodes, the first node receives a sequence of data units transmitted from the second node. The first communications node determines that one or more of the transmitted data units was either not received at all or was erroneously received (i.e., corrupted). The first node then sends a request to the second node to retransmit the one or more data units not received or erroneously received. Col 2 lines 50-67, Col 3 lines 1-11: When the timer indicates that the delay time period is over, a counter is started. Based on the counter's value, a determination is made whether all of the data units requested to be retransmitted has been properly received. If the determination indicates that the requested one or more data units has been retransmitted and properly received, no further action is taken. On the other hand, if the requested one or more data units to be retransmitted is not received or is erroneously received, the above-described procedure is repeated. Preferably, this timer is started simultaneously with the sending of the request for retransmission from the first node to the second node. The counter is also preferably initialized at or before the starting of the timer. The count value is changed after each time interval during which a number of data units is transmitted between the first and second nodes. One example of such a time interval is a communications frame. In an example embodiment, the counter is incremented after each time interval with the number of data units that should have been received during that time interval. For example, if two data units are currently transmitted per time interval, the counter is incremented by two. When the count value reaches the number of data units requested to be retransmitted, this is a good time for the first communications node to decide whether the data units requested to be retransmitted have been properly received. At that point in time, those requested data units should have been retransmitted by the second communications node and received by the first communications node. Col 5 lines 18-30: When the data unit count value reaches the number of data units that were requested to be retransmitted, the communications unit 14 determines if the requested data units to be transmit have been properly received (block 34). If so, the communications unit 14 continues to receive new data units from communications unit 12. Optionally, communications unit 14 may send a positive acknowledgment to communications unit 12 that the requested data units have been properly received. On the other hand, if any one of the requested data units to be transmit is not properly received by the time the data unit counter reaches the appropriate count value, the retransmission timer and the counter are reset (block 36), and the procedures beginning at block 26 are repeated.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide determining whether or not a second condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; and based on determining that the second condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node, as taught by Johansson in the combined system of Andreas, Jo, and Murakami, so that the second condition determines that the data packets have been received at the second node, and an optimum balance can be achieved between waiting too long to request a retransmission and requesting retransmissions before the data units have had a chance to be received (Johansson: Col 3, lines 12-28).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Andreas, Johansson, Jo, and Murakami teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one processor of the first network node is configured to execute the instructions to re-transmit the one or more data packets by: (see rejection for claim 1);
The combination of Andreas, Jo, and Murakami does not explicitly teach determining whether or not a third condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; based on determining that the third condition is met, determining whether or not a fourth condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; and based on determining that the fourth condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node.
However, Johansson teaches determining whether or not a third condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; based on determining that the third condition is met, determining whether or not a fourth condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; and based on determining that the fourth condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node (Col 1 lines 47-50: In particular, the timer may be started when the data unit is transmitted. If the timer expires before receiving a positive acknowledgment, the data unit is automatically retransmitted. Col 2 lines 36-67, Col 3 lines 1-11: During a communication between first and second communications nodes, the first node receives a sequence of data units transmitted from the second node. The first communications node determines that one or more of the transmitted data units was either not received at all or was erroneously received (i.e., corrupted). The first node then sends a request to the second node to retransmit the one or more data units not received or erroneously received. A retransmit timer is started when the retransmission request is sent. The retransmit timer accounts for the delay time period required for the retransmit request to reach the second node, for the second node to process the request and start transmitting the requested data units, and for the first retransmitted data unit to reach the first node.
When the timer indicates that the delay time period is over, a counter is started. Based on the counter's value, a determination is made whether all of the data units requested to be retransmitted has been properly received. If the determination indicates that the requested one or more data units has been retransmitted and properly received, no further action is taken. On the other hand, if the requested one or more data units to be retransmitted is not received or is erroneously received, the above-described procedure is repeated. Preferably, this timer is started simultaneously with the sending of the request for retransmission from the first node to the second node. The counter is also preferably initialized at or before the starting of the timer. The count value is changed after each time interval during which a number of data units is transmitted between the first and second nodes. One example of such a time interval is a communications frame. In an example embodiment, the counter is incremented after each time interval with the number of data units that should have been received during that time interval. For example, if two data units are currently transmitted per time interval, the counter is incremented by two. When the count value reaches the number of data units requested to be retransmitted, this is a good time for the first communications node to decide whether the data units requested to be retransmitted have been properly received. At that point in time, those requested data units should have been retransmitted by the second communications node and received by the first communications node. Col 5 lines 18-30: When the data unit count value reaches the number of data units that were requested to be retransmitted, the communications unit 14 determines if the requested data units to be transmit have been properly received (block 34). If so, the communications unit 14 continues to receive new data units from communications unit 12. Optionally, communications unit 14 may send a positive acknowledgment to communications unit 12 that the requested data units have been properly received. On the other hand, if any one of the requested data units to be transmit is not properly received by the time the data unit counter reaches the appropriate count value, the retransmission timer and the counter are reset (block 36), and the procedures beginning at block 26 are repeated.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide determining whether or not a third condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; based on determining that the third condition is met, determining whether or not a fourth condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; and based on determining that the fourth condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node, as taught by Johansson in the combined system of Andreas, Jo, and Murakami, so that the conditions determine that the data packets have been received at the second node, and an optimum balance can be achieved between waiting too long to request a retransmission and requesting retransmissions before the data units have had a chance to be received (Johansson: Col 3, lines 12-28).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Andreas, Johansson, Jo, and Murakami teaches the system as claimed in claim 1 further comprising (see rejection for claim 1);
Andreas further teaches the second network node, wherein the second network node comprises: a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: (Paragraph [0049]: Reference is made to FIG. 1 a. FIG. 1a illustrates a simplified version of a multi path multi-hop relay network. Shown is a source node S and a target node T. There is also illustrated a number of relay nodes A-G over which data packets may be transmitted from the source node S to the target node T. It should be noted that the participating relay nodes are common network nodes, such as Radio Base Stations and User Equipments within the network that are configured to perform the task of relaying the data packets. A particular relay node may thus be considered to be the source node S, or the target node T, during some other transmission. The source node S and target node T may in the same way act as relay nodes during yet another transmission. Another possible relay network comprises a multi-hop relay network that also supports multi-path routing. Paragraph [0105]: In a particular example, the relay node 10 comprises a processor 120 and a memory 130, the memory comprising instructions executable by the processor, in order to control the relay. Paragraph [0107]: In this particular example, at least some of the steps, functions, procedures, modules and/or blocks described herein are implemented in a computer program, which is loaded into the memory for execution by processing circuitry including one or more processors.)
receive one or more data packets from the first network node; transmit the received one or more data packets to a third network node; receive one or more re-transmitted data packets from the first network node; and transmit the received one or more re-transmitted data packets to the third network node (Paragraph [0077]: To this end, the proposed technology provides a method performed by a relay node for handling data packet transmission in a wireless communication network configured for multi-path multi-hop routing. The method comprises the step of receiving S10 a data packet from a preceding relay node, PRN, in the wireless communication network. The method also comprises the step of transmitting S20 the data packet towards a succeeding relay node, SRN, in the wireless communication network. The method also comprises the step of receiving S30 a relay NACK message, RNACK message, associated with the data packet from the SRN. Paragraph [0078]: In slightly different words and with reference to the signaling diagram of FIG. 5, a relay node, RN, 10 receives S10 a data packet intended for a target node from a preceding relay node, PRN, 9. The relay node, RN, 10 transmits 20 the data packet towards a succeeding relay node, SRN, 11 to enable the SRN 11 to perform further transmissions of the data packet towards the target node. Paragraph [0082]: According to yet another embodiment there is provided a method wherein the step S40 of forwarding the data packet comprises to retransmit the data packet stored in the data packet buffer to a replacement relay node, RRN, different from the SRN to enable the replacement relay node to relay the data packet onto another path towards an intended target node.)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Andreas, Johansson, Jo, and Murakami teaches the system as claimed in claim 3, wherein the at least one processor of the first network node is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether or not the second condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met by (see rejection for claim 3);
The combination of Andreas, Jo, and Murakami does not explicitly teach comparing a timer value to a first pre-defined value; based on determining that the timer value is greater than the first pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is met; and based on determining that the timer value is less than or equal to the first pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is not met.
However, Johansson teaches comparing a timer value to a first pre-defined value; based on determining that the timer value is greater than the first pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is met; and based on determining that the timer value is less than or equal to the first pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is not met (Abstract: During a communication between first and second communications nodes, the first node receives a sequence of data units transmitted from the second node. The first communications node determines that one or more of the transmitted data units was either not received at all or was erroneously received (i.e., corrupted). The first node then sends a request to the second node to retransmit the one or more data units not received or erroneously received. A retransmit timer is started when the retransmission request is sent. The retransmit timer accounts for the delay time period required for the retransmit request to reach the second node, for the second node to retransmit the requested data units, and for the retransmitted data units to reach the first node. When the timer indicates that the delay time period has occurred/expired, a counter is started. Based on the counter's value, a determination is made whether all of the data units requested to be retransmitted have been properly received. Col 1 lines 47-50: In particular, the timer may be started when the data unit is transmitted. If the timer expires before receiving a positive acknowledgment, the data unit is automatically retransmitted. Col 2 lines 50-59: When the timer indicates that the delay time period is over, a counter is started. Based on the counter's value, a determination is made whether all of the data units requested to be retransmitted has been properly received. If the determination indicates that the requested one or more data units has been retransmitted and properly received, no further action is taken. On the other hand, if the requested one or more data units to be retransmitted is not received or is erroneously received, the above-described procedure is repeated. Col 5 lines 18-30: When the data unit count value reaches the number of data units that were requested to be retransmitted, the communications unit 14 determines if the requested data units to be transmit have been properly received (block 34). If so, the communications unit 14 continues to receive new data units from communications unit 12. Optionally, communications unit 14 may send a positive acknowledgment to communications unit 12 that the requested data units have been properly received. On the other hand, if any one of the requested data units to be transmit is not properly received by the time the data unit counter reaches the appropriate count value, the retransmission timer and the counter are reset (block 36), and the procedures beginning at block 26 are repeated.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide comparing a timer value to a first pre-defined value; based on determining that the timer value is greater than the first pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is met; and based on determining that the timer value is less than or equal to the first pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is not met, as taught by Johansson in the combined system of Andreas, Jo, and Murakami, so that based on the timer value an optimum balance can be achieved between waiting too long to request a retransmission and requesting retransmissions before the data units have had a chance to be received (Johansson: Col 3, lines 12-28).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Andreas, Johansson, Jo, and Murakami teaches the system as claimed in claim 3, wherein the at least one processor of the first network node is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether or not the second condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met by (see rejection for claim 3);
Andreas does not explicitly teach comparing the value of the counter to a second pre-defined value; based on determining that the value of the counter is smaller than the second pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is met; and based on determining that the value of the counter value is greater than or equal to the second pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is not met.
However, Johansson teaches, determining that the second condition is met; determining that the second condition is not met (Col 2 lines 36-43: During a communication between first and second communications nodes, the first node receives a sequence of data units transmitted from the second node. The first communications node determines that one or more of the transmitted data units was either not received at all or was erroneously received (i.e., corrupted). The first node then sends a request to the second node to retransmit the one or more data units not received or erroneously received. Col 2 lines 50-67, Col 3 lines 1-11: When the timer indicates that the delay time period is over, a counter is started. Based on the counter's value, a determination is made whether all of the data units requested to be retransmitted has been properly received. If the determination indicates that the requested one or more data units has been retransmitted and properly received, no further action is taken. On the other hand, if the requested one or more data units to be retransmitted is not received or is erroneously received, the above-described procedure is repeated. Preferably, this timer is started simultaneously with the sending of the request for retransmission from the first node to the second node. The counter is also preferably initialized at or before the starting of the timer. The count value is changed after each time interval during which a number of data units is transmitted between the first and second nodes. One example of such a time interval is a communications frame. In an example embodiment, the counter is incremented after each time interval with the number of data units that should have been received during that time interval. For example, if two data units are currently transmitted per time interval, the counter is incremented by two. When the count value reaches the number of data units requested to be retransmitted, this is a good time for the first communications node to decide whether the data units requested to be retransmitted have been properly received. At that point in time, those requested data units should have been retransmitted by the second communications node and received by the first communications node. Col 5 lines 18-30: When the data unit count value reaches the number of data units that were requested to be retransmitted, the communications unit 14 determines if the requested data units to be transmit have been properly received (block 34). If so, the communications unit 14 continues to receive new data units from communications unit 12. Optionally, communications unit 14 may send a positive acknowledgment to communications unit 12 that the requested data units have been properly received. On the other hand, if any one of the requested data units to be transmit is not properly received by the time the data unit counter reaches the appropriate count value, the retransmission timer and the counter are reset (block 36), and the procedures beginning at block 26 are repeated.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide determining that the second condition is met; determining that the second condition is not met, as taught by Johansson in the system of Andreas, so that the counter value can determine that the data packets have been received at the second node, and an optimum balance can be achieved between waiting too long to request a retransmission and requesting retransmissions before the data units have had a chance to be received (Johansson: Col 3, lines 12-28).
The combination of Andreas, Johansson, and Murakami does not explicitly teach comparing the value of the counter to a second pre-defined value; based on determining that the value of the counter is smaller than the second pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is met; and based on determining that the value of the counter value is greater than or equal to the second pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is not met.
However, Jo teaches comparing the value of the counter to a second pre-defined value; based on determining that the value of the counter is smaller than the second pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is met; and based on determining that the value of the counter value is greater than or equal to the second pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is not met (Paragraph [0123]: Referring to FIG. 9, the transmission end may re-transmit a data unit to a reception end in S901. And then, the transmission end may increase a retransmission counter associated with the data unit, in S903. Especially, when the data unit is not pending for retransmission already and the retransmission counter associated with the data unit has not been incremented due to another negative acknowledgment, the transmission end may increase a retransmission counter associated with the data unit in S903. Paragraph [0124]: Next, in S905, the transmission end may determine whether the retransmission counter associated with the data unit reaches to a max value or not. If the retransmission counter associated with the data unit reaches to the max value, the transmission end may report a max retransmission indication to an upper layer in S907 and set the retransmission counter associated with the data unit to zero in S909.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide comparing the value of the counter to a second pre-defined value; based on determining that the value of the counter is smaller than the second pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is met; and based on determining that the value of the counter value is greater than or equal to the second pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is not met, as taught by Jo in the combined system of Andreas, Johansson, and Murakami, so that a method of managing a retransmission counter in a wireless communication system would indicate that a maximum number of retransmissions has been reached based on the pre-defined value. This would help overcome delays and latencies in critical applications (Jo: Paragraphs [0002], [0099], [0100], [0123], [0124]).
Regarding claim 8, Andreas teaches a method, performed by at least one processor, comprising: transmitting, by a first network node, one or more data packets stored in a buffer to a second network node; determining, by the first network node, whether or not a re-transmission of the one or more data packets is required; re-transmitting, by the first network node, the one or more data packets to the second network node, based on determining that the re-transmission is required; and clearing, by the first network node, the one or more data packets from the buffer, based on determining that the re-transmission is not required, wherein the re-transmitting the one or more data packets comprises: determining the one or more data packets to be re-transmitted; and based on determining that the value of the counter is greater than the first pre-defined value, clear the determined one or more data packets from the buffer (see rejection for claim 1).
Andreas does not explicitly teach determining whether or not a first condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; based on determining that the first condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node.
However, Johansson teaches determining whether or not a first condition for re-transmitting
the determined one or more data packets is met; based on determining that the first condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node (see rejection for claim 1);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide determining whether or not a first condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; based on determining that the first condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node, as taught by Johansson in the system of Andreas, so that an optimum balance can be achieved between waiting too long to request a retransmission and requesting retransmissions before the data units have had a chance to be received (Johansson: Col 3, lines 12-28).
The combination of Andreas and Johansson does not explicitly teach re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node and increasing a value of a counter corresponding to a number of attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets; determining whether or not the value of the counter is greater than a number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets; and based on determining that the value of the counter is greater than the number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets, reset the value of the counter.
However, Jo teaches re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node and increasing a value of a counter corresponding to a number of attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets; determining whether or not the value of the counter is greater than a number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets; and based on determining that the value of the counter is greater than the number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets, reset the value of the counter (see rejection for claim 1);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node and increasing a value of a counter corresponding to a number of attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets; determining whether or not the value of the counter is greater than a number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets; and based on determining that the value of the counter is greater than the number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets, reset the value of the counter, as taught by Jo in the combined system of Andreas and Johansson, so that a method of managing a retransmission counter in a wireless communication system would indicate that a maximum number of retransmissions has been reached. This would help overcome delays and latencies in critical applications (Jo: Paragraphs [0002], [0099], [0100], [0123], [0124]).
The combination of Andreas, Johansson, and Jo does not explicitly teach based on determining that the value of the counter is greater than the number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets, clear the determined one or more data packets from the buffer and reset the value of the counter.
However, Murakami teaches based on determining that the value of the counter is greater than the number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets, clear the determined one or more data packets from the buffer and reset the value of the counter (see rejection for claim 1);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide based on determining that the value of the counter is greater than the number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets, clear the determined one or more data packets from the buffer and reset the value of the counter, as taught by Murakami in the combined system of Andreas, Johansson, and Jo, so that retransmission of obsolete or outdated data can be avoided (Murakami: Page 12, Paragraphs 6-10).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Andreas, Johanson, Jo, and Murakami teaches the method as claimed in claim 8, wherein the re-transmitting of the one or more data packets comprises: (see rejection for claim 8);
The combination of Andreas, Jo, and Murakami does not explicitly teach determining whether or not a second condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; and based on determining that the second condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node.
However, Johansson teaches determining whether or not a second condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; and based on determining that the second condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node (see rejection for claim 3);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide determining whether or not a second condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; and based on determining that the second condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node, as taught by Johansson in the combined system of Andreas, Jo, and Murakami, so that the second condition determines that the data packets have been received at the second node, and an optimum balance can be achieved between waiting too long to request a retransmission and requesting retransmissions before the data units have had a chance to be received (Johansson: Col 3, lines 12-28).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Andreas, Johansson, Jo, and Murakami teaches the method as claimed in claim 8, wherein the re-transmitting of the one or more data packets comprises: (see rejection for claim 8);
The combination of Andreas, Jo, and Murakami does not explicitly teach determining whether or not a third condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; based on determining that the third condition is met, determining whether or not a fourth condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packet is met; and based on determining that the fourth condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node.
However, Johansson teaches determining whether or not a third condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; based on determining that the third condition is met, determining whether or not a fourth condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packet is met; and based on determining that the fourth condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node (see rejection for claim 4);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide determining whether or not a third condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; based on determining that the third condition is met, determining whether or not a fourth condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packet is met; and based on determining that the fourth condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node, as taught by Johansson in the combined system of Andreas, Jo, and Murakami, so that the conditions determine that the data packets have been received at the second node, and an optimum balance can be achieved between waiting too long to request a retransmission and requesting retransmissions before the data units have had a chance to be received (Johansson: Col 3, lines 12-28).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Andreas, Johansson, Jo, and Murakami teaches the method as claimed in claim 8, further comprising (see rejection for claim 8);
Andreas further teaches receiving, by the second network node, one or more data packets from the first network node; transmitting, by the second network node, the received one or more data packets to a third network node; receiving, by the second network node, one or more re-transmitted data packets from the first network node; and re-transmitting, by the second network node, the received one or more re- transmitted data packets to the third network node (see rejection for claim 5).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Andreas, Johansson, Jo, and Murakami teaches the method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the determining whether or not the second condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met comprises (see rejection for claim 10);
The combination of Andreas, Jo, and Murakami does not explicitly teach comparing a timer value to a first pre-defined value; based on determining that the timer value is greater than the first pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is met; and based on determining that the timer value is less than or equal to the first pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is not met.
However, Johansson teaches comparing a timer value to a first pre-defined value; based on determining that the timer value is greater than the first pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is met; and based on determining that the timer value is less than or equal to the first pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is not met (see rejection for claim 6);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide comparing a timer value to a first pre-defined value; based on determining that the timer value is greater than the first pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is met; and based on determining that the timer value is less than or equal to the first pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is not met, as taught by Johansson in the combined system of Andreas, Jo, and Murakami, so that based on the timer value an optimum balance can be achieved between waiting too long to request a retransmission and requesting retransmissions before the data units have had a chance to be received (Johansson: Col 3, lines 12-28).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Andreas, Johansson, Jo, and Murakami teaches the method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the determining of whether or not the second condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met comprises (see rejection for claim 10);
Andreas does not explicitly teach comparing the value of the counter to a second pre-defined value; based on determining that the value of the counter is less than the second pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is met; and based on determining that the value of the counter value is greater than or equal to the second pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is not met.
.
However, Johansson teaches determining that the second condition is met; determining that the second condition is not met (see rejection for claim 7);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide determining that the second condition is met; determining that the second condition is not met, as taught by Johansson in the system of Andreas, so that the counter value can determine that the data packets have been received at the second node, and an optimum balance can be achieved between waiting too long to request a retransmission and requesting retransmissions before the data units have had a chance to be received (Johansson: Col 3, lines 12-28).
The combination of Andreas, Johansson, and Murakami does not explicitly teach comparing the value of the counter to a second pre-defined value; based on determining that the value of the counter is less than the second pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is met; and based on determining that the value of the counter value is greater than or equal to the second pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is not met.
However, Jo teaches comparing the value of the counter to a second pre-defined value; based on determining that the value of the counter is less than the second pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is met; and based on determining that the value of the counter value is greater than or equal to the second pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is not met (see rejection for claim 7);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide comparing the value of the counter to a second pre-defined value; based on determining that the value of the counter is less than the second pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is met; and based on determining that the value of the counter value is greater than or equal to the second pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is not met, as taught by Jo in the combined system of Andreas and Johansson, so that a method of managing a retransmission counter in a wireless communication system would indicate that a maximum number of retransmissions has been reached based on the pre-defined value. This would help overcome delays and latencies in critical applications (Jo: Paragraphs [0002], [0099], [0100], [0123], [0124]).
Regarding claim 15, Andreas teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a method comprising (Paragraph [0105]: In a particular example, the relay node 10 comprises a processor 120 and a memory 130, the memory comprising instructions executable by the processor, in order to control the relay. Paragraph [0107]: In this particular example, at least some of the steps, functions, procedures, modules and/or blocks described herein are implemented in a computer program, which is loaded into the memory for execution by processing circuitry including one or more processors. Paragraph [0155]: By way of example, the software or computer program may be realized as a computer program product, which is normally carried or stored on a computer-readable medium, in particular a non-volatile medium. The computer-readable medium may include one or more removable or non-removable memory devices including, but not limited to a Read-Only Memory (ROM), a Random Access Memory (RAM), a Compact Disc (CD), a Digital Versatile Disc (DVD), a Blu-ray disc, a Universal Serial Bus (USB) memory, a Hard Disk Drive (HDD) storage device, a flash memory, a magnetic tape, or any other conventional memory device. The computer program may thus be loaded into the operating memory of a computer or equivalent processing device for execution by the processing circuitry thereof.)
transmitting one or more data packets stored in a buffer; determining whether or not a re-transmission of the one or more data packets is required; re-transmitting the one or more data packets, based on determining that the re-transmission is required; and clearing the one or more data packets from the buffer, based on determining that the re-transmission is not required; wherein the re-transmitting the one or more data packets comprises: determining the one or more data packets to be re-transmitted; and based on determining that the value of the counter is greater than the first pre- defined value, clear the determined one or more data packets from the buffer (see rejection for claim 1).
Andreas does not explicitly teach determining whether or not a first condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; based on determining that the first condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node.
However, Johansson teaches determining whether or not a first condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; based on determining that the first condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node (see rejection for claim 1);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide determining whether or not a first condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; based on determining that the first condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node, as taught by Johansson in the system of Andreas, so that an optimum balance can be achieved between waiting too long to request a retransmission and requesting retransmissions before the data units have had a chance to be received (Johansson: Col 3, lines 12-28).
The combination of Andreas and Johansson does not explicitly teach re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node and increasing a value of a counter corresponding to a number of attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets; determining whether or not the value of the counter is greater than a number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets; and based on determining that the value of the counter is greater than the number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets, reset the value of the counter.
However, Jo teaches re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node and increasing a value of a counter corresponding to a number of attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets; determining whether or not the value of the counter is greater than a number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets; and based on determining that the value of the counter is greater than the number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets, reset the value of the counter (see rejection for claim 1);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets to the second network node and increasing a value of a counter corresponding to a number of attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets; determining whether or not the value of the counter is greater than a number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets; and based on determining that the value of the counter is greater than the number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets, reset the value of the counter, as taught by Jo in the combined system of Andreas and Johansson, so that a method of managing a retransmission counter in a wireless communication system would indicate that a maximum number of retransmissions has been reached. This would help overcome delays and latencies in critical applications (Jo: Paragraphs [0002], [0099], [0100], [0123], [0124]).
The combination of Andreas, Johansson, and Jo does not explicitly teach based on determining that the value of the counter is greater than the number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets, clear the determined one or more data packets from the buffer and reset the value of the counter.
However, Murakami teaches based on determining that the value of the counter is greater than the number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets, clear the determined one or more data packets from the buffer and reset the value of the counter (see rejection for claim 1);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide based on determining that the value of the counter is greater than the number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets, clear the determined one or more data packets from the buffer and reset the value of the counter, as taught by Murakami in the combined system of Andreas, Johansson, and Jo, so that retransmission of obsolete or outdated data can be avoided (Murakami: Page 12, Paragraphs 6-10).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Andreas, Johansson, Jo, and Murakami teaches the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium as claimed in claim 15, wherein the re-transmitting of the one or more data packets comprises (see rejection for claim 15);
The combination of Andreas, Jo, and Murakami does not explicitly teach determining whether or not a second condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; and based on determining that the second condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets.
However, Johansson teaches determining whether or not a second condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; and based on determining that the second condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets (see rejection for claim 3);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide determining whether or not a second condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; and based on determining that the second condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets, as taught by Johansson in the combined system of Andreas, Jo, and Murakami, so that the second condition determines that the data packets have been received, and an optimum balance can be achieved between waiting too long to request a retransmission and requesting retransmissions before the data units have had a chance to be received (Johansson: Col 3, lines 12-28).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Andreas, Johansson, Jo, and Murakami teaches the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium as claimed in claim 15, wherein the re-transmitting of the one or more data packets comprises (see rejection for claim 15);
The combination of Andreas, Jo, and Murakami does not explicitly teach determining whether or not a third condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; based on determining that the third condition is met, determining whether or not a fourth condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packet is met; and based on determining that the fourth condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets.
However, Johansson teaches determining whether or not a third condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; based on determining that the third condition is met, determining whether or not a fourth condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packet is met; and based on determining that the fourth condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets (see rejection for claim 4);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide determining whether or not a third condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met; based on determining that the third condition is met, determining whether or not a fourth condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packet is met; and based on determining that the fourth condition is met, re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets, as taught by Johansson in the combined system of Andreas, Jo, and Murakami, so that the conditions determine that the data packets have been received, and an optimum balance can be achieved between waiting too long to request a retransmission and requesting retransmissions before the data units have had a chance to be received (Johansson: Col 3, lines 12-28).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Andreas, Johansson, Jo, and Murakami teaches the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium as claimed in claim 17, wherein the determining whether or not the second condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met comprises (see rejection for claim 17);
The combination of Andreas, Jo, and Murakami does not explicitly teach comparing a timer value to a first pre-defined value; based on determining that the timer value is greater than the first pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is met; and based on determining that the timer value is less than or equal to the first pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is not met.
However, Johansson teaches comparing a timer value to a first pre-defined value; based on determining that the timer value is greater than the first pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is met; and based on determining that the timer value is less than or equal to the first pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is not met (see rejection for claim 6);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide comparing a timer value to a first pre-defined value; based on determining that the timer value is greater than the first pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is met; and based on determining that the timer value is less than or equal to the first pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is not met, as taught by Johansson in the combined system of Andreas, Jo, and Murakami, so that based on the timer value an optimum balance can be achieved between waiting too long to request a retransmission and requesting retransmissions before the data units have had a chance to be received (Johansson: Col 3, lines 12-28).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Andreas, Johansson, Jo, and Murakami teaches the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium as claimed in claim 17, wherein the determining of whether or not the second condition for re-transmitting the determined one or more data packets is met comprises (see rejection for claim 17);
Andreas does not explicitly teach comparing the value of the counter to a second pre-defined value; based on determining that the value of the counter is less than the second pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is met; and based on determining that the value of the counter value is greater than or equal to the second pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is not met.
However, Johansson teaches determining that the second condition is met; determining that the second condition is not met (see rejection for claim 7);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide determining that the second condition is met; determining that the second condition is not met, as taught by Johansson in the system of Andreas, so that the counter value can determine that the data packets have been received at the second node, and an optimum balance can be achieved between waiting too long to request a retransmission and requesting retransmissions before the data units have had a chance to be received (Johansson: Col 3, lines 12-28).
The combination of Andreas, Johansson, and Murakami does not explicitly teach comparing the value of the counter to a second pre-defined value; based on determining that the value of the counter is less than the second pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is met; and based on determining that the value of the counter value is greater than or equal to the second pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is not met.
However, Jo teaches comparing the value of the counter to a second pre-defined value; based on determining that the value of the counter is less than the second pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is met; and based on determining that the value of the counter value is greater than or equal to the second pre-defined value, determining that the second condition is not met (see rejection for claim 7);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide comparing the counter value to a third pre-defined value; based on determining that the counter value is less than the third pre-defined value, determining that the condition is met; and based on determining that the counter value is greater than or equal to the third pre-defined value, determining that the condition is not met, as taught by Jo in the combined system of Andreas, Johansson, and Murakami, so that a method of managing a retransmission counter in a wireless communication system would indicate that a maximum number of retransmissions has been reached based on the pre-defined value. This would help overcome delays and latencies in critical applications (Jo: Paragraphs [0002], [0099], [0100], [0123], [0124]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment filed October 24, 2025 with respect to claim 6 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered. The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed October 24, 2025 with respect to claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreas Bergstrom et al. (US20180317156A1), hereinafter Andreas, in view of Johansson et al. (US6473399B1), and Jo et al. (US 20200344004 A1) have been fully considered.
Amended independent claim 1 recites in part “determining whether or not the value of the counter is greater than a number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets; and based on determining that the value of the counter is greater than the number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets, clear the determined one or more data packets from the buffer and reset the value of the counter.” Murakami et al. (JP2006203649A) teaches “determining that the value of the counter is greater than the number of allowable attempts to re-transmit the determined one or more data packets, clear the determined one or more data packets from the buffer and reset the value of the counter.” Murakami teaches a counter, which increments the number of retransmissions, and when the number of retransmissions matches a determination count (maximum allowable retransmission attempts), the data from the buffer is deleted, and the retransmission counter is set to zero. Thus, the combination of Andreas, Johansson, Jo, and Murakami teaches amended independent claim 1, and also amended independent claims 8 and 15, which recite similar limitations. Dependent claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20 are also taught by the combination of the cited references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATHA CHAKRAVARTHY whose telephone number is (703)756-1172. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 AM - 5 PM.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2461
/HUY D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2461