DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment submitted on 05/12/2026 has been received and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1, 3, 7, and 10-11 were amended, and claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, and 10-14 remain pending.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Response to Arguments
On page 9 of their remarks, the Applicant argues that mapping Hwang1’s “parity CB” to the “network-coded data” in Claim 1 is “inconsistent” because the “‘network-coded data’ of claim 1 is re-encoded data including at least a portion of original data units,” and “it is not parity information or generic error-protection redundancy” (Applicant Remarks, p. 9).
On this point, the Examiner agrees that the parity blocks described in Hwang1 differ from the claimed “network coding” as described in the applicant’s specification. However, the rejection is based on the combination of both Hwang1 and Sun, and Sun does describe “network coding” a “HARQ retransmission” of an uplink packet (e.g. see Sun, 0057). Since both the parity code blocks in Hwang1 and the network coding in Sun enhance transmission reliability and are used in combination with HARQ retransmission, the enhanced reliability that network coding offers means a skilled artisan would find it obvious to use it instead of the parity scheme in Hwang1. Thus, the obviousness rejection based on Hwang1 in view of Sun is properly maintained.
Later on page 9 of their remarks, the Applicant writes that the pending rejection “reads out the expressly recited ‘re-encoding’ and ‘selecting’ operations from the claims” (Remarks, p. 9).
However, the Examiner disagrees with this analysis because, again, the pending rejection is based on the combination of Hwang1 and Sun, not Hwang1 alone. Paragraph 0057 from Sun, which describes base station MSj in Fig. 1A as performing “network coding” for “a downlink HARQ retransmission to the MSk which was previously decoded and stored by the MSj 104” (Sun, 0057), at least renders obvious the claimed “re-encoding”.
Furthermore, the Applicant appears to be interpreting the claim limitation that requires “select[ing] at least part of the plurality of second encoded data units as the network-coded data” too narrowly. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “select[ing] at least part” encompasses selecting all of the original data units for network coding. This corresponds to both paragraph 0057 in Sun and paragraph 0209 of Hwang’s which describes generating parity for each CB. Thus, the obviousness rejection of these limitations based on Hwang1 in view of Sun is properly maintained.
The Applicant then writes on page 10 of their Remarks that “the cited portions of Hwang1 do not disclose the claimed transmission arrangement within the second TB” which requires that “the first subset of CBs or CBS [sic] is obtained from a buffer which stores the first set of CBs or CBGs” (Remarks, p. 9).
However, the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive because Sun does describe precisely this use of a buffer in describing “network coding ... a downlink HARQ retransmission to the MSk which was previously decoded and stored by the MSj 104” (Sun, 0057). Sun also describes this claimed feature in other contexts such as paragraph 0104 where “the RS 1276 [in Fig. 12A] has buffered a downlink message to the MS3 1270” (Sun, 0104). Again, the rejection is based on the combination of both Hwang1 and Sun, so because of the clear advantage provided by buffered retransmission, a skilled artisan would have had clear motivation to incorporate it into Hwang1’s method, meaning the obviousness rejection based on Hwang1 in view of Sun is properly maintained.
Later on page 10, the Applicant again argues that Hwang1’s description of parity CBs does not read on the claimed “plurality of second encoded data units”, writing, “Hwang1’s parity CB is merely additional redundancy associated with retransmission, not a separately generated set of network-coded data selected from second encoded data units as required by the claims. Nor does Hwang1 disclose partitioning the second TB into distinct subsets respectively carrying HARQ retransmission data and separately generated network-coded data” (Remarks, p. 10).
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with this interpretation. Network coding is, like parity blocks, ‘additional redundancy’ applied to make a transmission more fault tolerant, so this does not distinguish additional parity bits from the claimed invention. Furthermore, separately sending the parity blocks with the data code blocks in a single TB does clearly amount to the claimed “partitioning” of “the second TB”. Hwang1 only lacks an explicit description of network coding, but this is supplied by Sun, and the benefits of network coding (namely, increased reliability) would make it obvious to a skilled artisan to replace the parity blocks in Hwang1 with network coding.
Next, on page 10, the Applicant reiterates - with respect to claims 3 and 7 - previous arguments that Hwang1’s parity code blocks do not map to network coded code blocks, but these arguments are not persuasive because they still attack Hwang1 and Sun individually without accounting for their combination. Sun, not Hwang1, teaches network coding a code block, and, as explained above, Hwang1 teaches (i) “generating second encoded data units from original data units” (this corresponds to Hwang1’s generation of parity code blocks), (ii) “selecting at least part of the second encoded data units as network-coded data” (the parity code blocks at least render obvious network coded data in combination with Sun), (iii) “organizing such network-coded data into a second subset of CBs or CBGs distinct from a HARQ retransmission subset” (again, replacing the parity blocks in Hwang1 with Sun’s network coded blocks renders this obvious), and (iv) “transmitting those distinct subsets together within a second TB” (Hwang1 transmits the parity code blocks together with data code blocks in a TB). To reiterate, a skilled artisan would be motivated to replace the parity blocks in Hwang1 with the network coding described in Sun because the network coding would clearly increase transmission reliability.
Lastly, the Applicant argues on pages 11-12 of their remarks that the combination of Hwang1 and Sun is improper because it allegedly relies on hindsight bias and “mere conclusory statements” (Brief, p. 12).
However, in the Examiner’s view, this analysis does not correctly apply the obviousness standard under 35 U.S.C. 103. As MPEP 2144 II states, “the expectation of some advantage is the strongest rationale for combining references”. Thus, the aforementioned advantage of enhanced reliability offers clear motivation to replace the parity blocks described in Hwang1 with Sun’s network-coded HARQ retransmissions, meaning the obviousness rejection based on the combination of Hwang1 with Sun is proper and should be maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2019/0379489 A1, hereinafter “Hwang1”) in view of Sun et al. (US 2011/0176408 A1, hereinafter “Sun”).
As to Claim 1:
Hwang1 describes a method for applying HARQ retransmission to code block groups that a downlink device fails to successfully decode.
Specifically, Hwang1 teaches:
One or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to store a program having instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors; cause the apparatus
See Fig. 11 of Hwang1 and the accompanying description in paragraph 0219.
Encode a plurality of original data units to generate a plurality of first encoded data units
Paragraph 0019 of Hwang1 describes a “user equipment (UE) ... configured to receive a plurality of transport blocks including a plurality of code block groups from the BS” (Hwang1, 0019).
Here, the “code block groups” are analogous to “a plurality of first encoded data units” that have been encoded.
Send first data to a first communication device, wherein the first data comprises the plurality of first encoded data units that are carried in a first set of blocks (CBs) or code block groups (CBGs) of a first transmission block (TB)
Paragraph 0019 of Hwang1 describes a “user equipment (UE) ... configured to receive a plurality of transport blocks including a plurality of code block groups from the BS” (Hwang1, 0019).
Receive first indication information from the first communication device
Paragraphs 0014 and 0019 of Hwang1 describe a UE receiving negative acknowledgements (NACKs) as HARQ feedback for certain code block groups. These “Nack” signals meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of “first indication information”.
Send second data in a second set of CBs or CBGs of a second TB to the first communication device in accordance with the first indication information
In paragraphs 0014 and 0019 of Hwang1, the UE sends a retransmission (“second data”) for code block groups that were negatively acknowledged.
In response that the first indication information indicates hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) retransmission and network coding-based transmission, the second set of CBs or CBGs comprises a first subset of CBs or CBGs for carrying HARQ retransmission data and a second subset of CBs or CBGs for carrying network-coded data
Paragraph 0014 of Hwang1 describes retransmitting negatively acknowledged code block groups, and paragraphs 0209 and 0211 of Hwang describe sending code block groups with a parity code block (i.e. sending a second code block that is “network coding” for fault tolerance).
Determine that the first subset of CBs or CBGs of the first set of CBs or CBGs is incorrectly received by the first communication device in the first TB
Paragraph 0014 of Hwang1 describes retransmitting code blocks that were negatively acknowledged, i.e. code blocks that were “incorrectly received”.
Here, receiving the negative acknowledgement for select code blocks corresponds to “determin[ing] that the first subset of CBs or CBGs of the first set of CBs or CBGs is incorrectly received by the first communication device in the first TB”.
Sending the first subset of CBs or CBGs for HARQ retransmission
Paragraph 0014 of Hwang1 describes “HARQ retransmission” of code blocks that were negatively acknowledged.
Select at least part of the plurality of second encoded data units as the network-coded data in the second subset of CBs or CBGs
Paragraph 0209 of Hwang1 describes HARQ-ACK retransmission including a parity code block, and paragraph 0211 elaborates that there may be “parity CBs” for “each CBG” (i.e. a “second subset of CBs”).
Send the first subset of CBS or CBGs ... and the second subset of CBs or CBGs carrying the at least part of the plurality of second encoded data units
Paragraph 0209 of Hwang1 describes “HARQ-ACK ... retransmission” of code block groups (the “first subset of CBS or CBGs”) along with a “parity CB” (i.e. the “second subset of CBs or CBGs”).
Hwang1 does not explicitly disclose:
Obtain the first [message] from a buffer which stores the first [message] before sending the first [message]
Re-encode the plurality of original data units to generate a plurality of second encoded data units that comprise data of the plurality of original data units
However, Sun does describe methods to retransmit an uplink packet after initial transmission fails.
Specifically, Sun teaches:
Obtain the first [message] from a buffer which stores the first [message] before sending the first [message]
Fig. 12C in Sun depicts a scenario where “the RS 1276 knows that the buffered downlink message to the MS1 1266 should be network coded ... and the RS 1276 generates and transmits the network coded message” (Sun, 0108, Fig. 12C).
Here, “the buffered downlink message” corresponds to “obtain[ing] the first [message] from a buffer which stores the first [message]”, and
“RS 1276” subsequently “generat[ing] and transmit[ting] the network coded message” corresponds to “sending the first [message]”.
Re-encode the plurality of original data units to generate a plurality of second encoded data units that comprise data of the plurality of original data units
Paragraph 0057 of Sun states that “if the MSj [master station 104 in Fig. 1A] fails to decode an uplink packet ‘x’”, then another station can respond by “network coding the HARQ retransmission of the uplink packet x” to the MS.
Sun also teaches more explicitly than Hwang1:
Network coded data
Sun describes a base station receiving and transmitting “a network coded packet” (Sun, 0057).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the HARQ retransmission described in Hwang1 with the network coding described in Sun. Sun discusses simple fault tolerance techniques such as parity, so it would be obvious to incorporate more sophisticated error correction techniques like network coding into Sun’s method as further alternatives to HARQ retransmission when an uplink transmission fails.
As to Claims 3 and 7:
Hwang1 describes a method for applying HARQ retransmission to code block groups that a downlink device fails to successfully decode.
Specifically, Hwang1 teaches:
One or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to store a program having instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors; cause the apparatus
See Fig. 11 of Hwang1 and the accompanying description in paragraph 0219.
Encode a plurality of original data units to generate a plurality of first encoded data units
Paragraph 0019 of Hwang1 describes a “user equipment (UE) ... configured to receive a plurality of transport blocks including a plurality of code block groups from the BS” (Hwang1, 0019).
Here, the “code block groups” are analogous to “a plurality of first encoded data units” that have been encoded.
Send first data to a communication device, wherein the first data comprises the plurality of first encoded data units that are carried in a first set of blocks (CBs) or code block groups (CBGs) of a first transmission block (TB)
Paragraph 0019 of Hwang1 describes a “user equipment (UE) ... configured to receive a plurality of transport blocks including a plurality of code block groups from the BS” (Hwang1, 0019).
Receive, from the communication device, indication information indicating a reception status of the first data
Paragraphs 0014 and 0019 of Hwang1 describe a UE receiving negative acknowledgements (NACKs) as HARQ feedback for certain code block groups. These “Nack” signals meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of “first indication information indicating a reception status of the first data”.
Send second data in a second set of CBs or CBGs of a second TB to the communication device in accordance with the reception status of the first data and a plurality of conditions
In paragraphs 0014 and 0019 of Hwang1, the UE sends a retransmission (“second data”) for code block groups that were negatively acknowledged.
In repose [sic] that the reception status of the first data meets a third condition of the plurality of conditions, the second data comprises the HARQ retransmission data and the network-code data
Paragraph 0209 of Hwang describes negatively acknowledging a HARQ-ACK transmission (i.e. “the reception status of the first data meets a third condition”), and paragraph 0211 describes HARQ-retransmission with a parity code block.
The second set of CBs or CBGs comprises a first subset of CBs or CBGs for carrying the HARQ retransmission data and a second subset of CBs or CBGs for carrying the network coded data
Paragraph 0211 of Hwang1 describes HARQ retransmission of negatively acknowledged code blocks (“a first subset of CBs”) along with a parity code block (“a second subset of CBs”).
The first subset of CBs or CBGs is part of the first set of CBs or CBGs and is incorrectly received by the first communication device in the first TB
The retransmissions described in paragraphs 0209 and 0211 of Hwang are the subset of the original code blocks that were negatively acknowledged.
Select at least part of the plurality of second encoded data units as the network-coded data in the second subset of CBs or CBGs
The parity code block described in paragraph 0211 of Hwang is generated and selected as the “network-coded data in the second subset of CBs or CBGs”.
Furthermore, although Hwang1 does not explicitly teach the claimed arrangement of the following limitations, it does still render obvious:
In response that the reception status of the first data meets a first condition of the plurality of conditions, the second data comprises hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) retransmission data, the second set of CBs or CBGs is at least part of the first set of CBs or CBGs
Paragraph 0014 of Hwang1 describes a base station negatively acknowledging reception of certain code blocks in a transport block (i.e. the “reception status of the first data meets a first condition”), and paragraph 0209 of Hwang1 describes HARQ-ACK retransmission including a parity code block.
And:
In response that the reception status of the first data meets a second condition of the plurality of conditions, the second data comprises network-coded data
Paragraph 0014 of Hwang1 describes negatively acknowledging code block transmissions, and paragraph 0209 describes HARQ-ACK retransmission with a parity code block.
Hwang1 does not explicitly disclose:
Perform network coding on least [sic] part of the first data to generate the network-coded data
Obtain the first subset of CBs or CBS from a buffer which stores the first set of CBs or CBGs before sending the first set of CBs or CBGs
Re-encode the plurality of original data units to generate a plurality of second encoded data units that comprise data of the plurality of original data units
The at least part of the plurality of second encoded data units comprising at least part of data of the data of the plurality of original data units
However, Sun does describe methods to retransmit an uplink packet after initial transmission fails.
Specifically, Sun teaches:
Perform network coding on least [sic] part of the first data to generate the network-coded data
Sun describes a base station receiving and transmitting “a network coded packet” (Sun, 0057).
Obtain the first [message] from a buffer which stores the first [message] before sending the first [message]
Fig. 12C in Sun depicts a scenario where “the RS 1276 knows that the buffered downlink message to the MS1 1266 should be network coded ... and the RS 1276 generates and transmits the network coded message” (Sun, 0108, Fig. 12C).
Here, “the buffered downlink message” corresponds to “obtain[ing] the first [message] from a buffer which stores the first [message]”, and
“RS 1276” subsequently “generat[ing] and transmit[ting] the network coded message” corresponds to “sending the first [message]”.
Re-encode the plurality of original data units to generate a plurality of second encoded data units that comprise data of the plurality of original data units
Paragraph 0057 of Sun states that “if the MSj [master station 104 in Fig. 1A] fails to decode an uplink packet ‘x’”, then another station can respond by “network coding the HARQ retransmission of the uplink packet x” to the MS.
The at least part of the plurality of second encoded data units comprising at least part of data of the data of the plurality of original data units
Fig. 12C in Sun depicts a scenario where “the RS 1276 knows that the buffered downlink message to the MS1 1266 should be network coded ... and the RS 1276 generates and transmits the network coded message” (Sun, 0108, Fig. 12C).
Here, the “buffered downlink message” that is subsequently “transmit[ted]” corresponds to “at least part of data of the data of the plurality of original data units”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the HARQ retransmission described in Hwang1 with the network coding described in Sun. Sun discusses simple fault tolerance techniques such as parity, so it would be obvious to incorporate more sophisticated error correction techniques like network coding into Sun’s method as further alternatives to HARQ retransmission when an uplink transmission fails.
Claim 7 describes substantially the same subject matter as Claim 3 but from the perspective of the device that receives the encoded data.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang1 (US 2019/0379489 A1) in view of Sun (US 2011/0176408 A1) and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2018/0131428 A1, hereinafter “Chen”).
As to Claim 5:
The combination of Hwang1 and Sun does not explicitly disclose:
A ratio of a quantity of incorrectly received CBs or CBGs in the first TB to a quantity of all CBs or CBGs in the first TB is greater than a first threshold
A ratio of a quantity of incorrectly received CBs or CBGs in the first TB to a quantity of all CBs or CBGs in the first TB is less than a second threshold
The second threshold is equal to or less than the first threshold
However, Chen does describe a method to adapt HARQ feedback to channel quality conditions.
Specifically, Chen teaches:
A ratio of a quantity of incorrectly received CBs or CBGs in the first TB to a quantity of all CBs or CBGs in the first TB is greater than a first threshold
Paragraph 0155 of Chen describes “a threshold” for the number of successfully decoded code blocks of “½”.
A ratio of a quantity of incorrectly received CBs or CBGs in the first TB to a quantity of all CBs or CBGs in the first TB is less than a second threshold
Paragraph 0155 of Chen describes “a threshold” for the number of successfully decoded code blocks of “½”.
The second threshold is equal to or less than the first threshold
Paragraph 0155 of Chen describes “a threshold” for the number of successfully decoded code blocks of “½”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deploy Hwang1’s method for fault-correction using HARQ retransmission and error correcting codes if a threshold of corrupted code blocks, such as the one described in Chen, is met. The resulting additional fault tolerance can help combat the cause of the erroneous code blocks.
As to Claim 8:
The combination of Hwang1 and Sun does not explicitly disclose:
A ratio of a quantity of incorrectly received CBs or CBGs in the first TB to a quantity of all CBs or CBGs in the first TB falls within a first value interval
A ratio of a quantity of incorrectly received CBs or CBGs in the first TB to a quantity of all CBs or CBGs in the first TB is less than a first threshold
A ratio of a quantity of incorrectly received CBs or CBGs in the first TB to a quantity of all CBs or CBGs in the first TB is greater than a first threshold
However, Chen does teach:
A ratio of a quantity of incorrectly received CBs or CBGs in the first TB to a quantity of all CBs or CBGs in the first TB falls within a first value interval
Paragraph 0155 of Chen describes “a threshold” for the number of successfully decoded code blocks of “½”.
A ratio of a quantity of incorrectly received CBs or CBGs in the first TB to a quantity of all CBs or CBGs in the first TB is less than a second threshold
Paragraph 0155 of Chen describes “a threshold” for the number of successfully decoded code blocks of “½”.
A ratio of a quantity of incorrectly received CBs or CBGs in the first TB to a quantity of all CBs or CBGs in the first TB is greater than a first threshold
Paragraph 0155 of Chen describes “a threshold” for the number of successfully decoded code blocks of “½”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deploy Hwang1’s method for fault-correction using HARQ retransmission and error correcting codes if a threshold of corrupted code blocks, such as the one described in Chen, is met. The resulting additional fault tolerance can help combat the cause of the erroneous code blocks.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang1 (US 2019/0379489 A1) in view of Sun (US 2011/0176408 A1) and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0331788 A1, hereinafter “Kim”).
As to Claim 10:
Hwang1 teaches:
In response that [sic] the first indication information indicates network coding-based transmission, the second data comprises at least part of the first data
Paragraphs 0011 and 0209 of Hwang1 describes HARQ-ACK retransmission of negatively acknowledged data.
Send the second network-coded data in the second set of CBs or CBGs to the first communication device
Paragraph 0019 of Hwang1 describes a UE receiving HARQ-ACK retransmissions from a BS. Hwang1 0209 adds that the retransmissions can include a parity code block.
The combination of Hwang1 and Sun does not explicitly disclose:
The second data comprises at least part of the first data and new data to be sent to the first communication device
The apparatus is caused to perform network coding on the at least part of the first data and the new data into second network coded data
However, Kim does describe a method for mapping data into different bit locations in a retransmission.
Specifically, Kim teaches:
The second data comprises at least part of the first data and new data to be sent to the first communication device
Paragraph 0073 of Kim describes HAR-ACK retransmission that is combined with “new information bits (e.g. information bits not previously translated)” (Kim, 0073).
The apparatus is caused to perform network coding on the at least part of the first data and the new data to generate second network coded data
Paragraph 0073 of Kim describes HAR-ACK retransmission that is combined with “new information bits (e.g. information bits not previously translated)” (Kim, 0073).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kim’s practice of combining old and new data in a HARQ retransmission into Hwang1’s method for coupling HARQ retransmission with network coding. Combining old and new data allows for rectifying failed code block transmissions while still communicating current data.
As to Claim 11:
Hwang1 teaches:
In response that [sic] the first indication information indicates network coding-based transmission, the second data comprises at least part of the first data
Paragraphs 0011 and 0209 of Hwang1 describes HARQ-ACK retransmission of negatively acknowledged data.
Send the second network coded data in the second set of CBs or CBGs to the first communication device
Paragraph 0019 of Hwang1 describes a UE receiving HARQ-ACK retransmissions from a BS. Hwang1 0209 adds that the retransmissions can include a parity code block.
In response that the first indication information indicates HARQ retransmission, the second data comprises the HARQ retransmission data, and the second set of CBs or CBGs comprises at least part of the first set of CBs or CBGs
Paragraphs 0209 and 0211 of Hwang1 describe responding to negative acknowledgement of code blocks with HARQ retransmission of data along with a parity code block.
Hwang1 does not explicitly disclose:
The apparatus is caused to perform network coding on the second data to generate second network-coded data, and send the second network-coded data in the second [message] to the first communication device
However, Sun does teach:
The apparatus is caused to perform network coding on the second data to generate second network-coded data, and send the second network-coded data in the second [message] to the first communication device
Sun describes a base station receiving and transmitting “a network coded packet” (Sun, 0057).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the HARQ retransmission described in Hwang1 with the network coding described in Sun. Sun discusses simple fault tolerance techniques such as parity, so it would be obvious to incorporate more sophisticated error correction techniques like network coding into Sun’s method as further alternatives to HARQ retransmission when an uplink transmission fails.
The combination of Hwang1 and Sun also does not explicitly disclose:
The second data comprises at least part of the first data and new data
However, Kim does teach:
The second data comprises at least part of the first data and new data
Paragraph 0073 of Kim describes HARQ-ACK retransmission that is combined with “new information bits (e.g. information bits not previously translated)” (Kim, 0073).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kim’s practice of combining old and new data in a HARQ retransmission into Hwang1’s method for coupling HARQ retransmission with network coding. Combining old and new data allows for rectifying failed code block transmissions while still communicating current data.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang1 (US 2019/0379489 A1) in view of Sun (2011/0176408 A1) and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0389259 A1, hereinafter “Zhang”).
As to Claim 12:
The combination of Hwang1 and Sun does not explicitly disclose:
The first indication information is carried in a field with a first value indicating the HARQ retransmission and network coding-based transmission
The field includes a second value HARQ retransmission and a third value indicating network coding-based transmission
However, Zhang does describe a method for generating packets at the physical layer that includes appending a signal field to HARQ retransmissions.
Specifically, Zhang teaches:
The first indication information is carried in a field with a first value indicating the HARQ retransmission and network coding-based transmission
Paragraph 0104 of Zhang describes a “HARQ coding unit information subfield” that indicates “network coding-based transmission”, and paragraph 0184 clarifies is for “determining whether the corresponding HARQ coding unit includes an initial transmission” (Hwang1, 0104, 0184).
The field includes a second value HARQ retransmission and a third value indicating network coding-based transmission
Paragraph 0104 of Zhang describes a “HARQ coding unit information subfield” that indicates “network coding-based transmission”, and paragraph 0184 clarifies is for “determining whether the corresponding HARQ coding unit includes an initial transmission” (Hwang1, 0104, 0184).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zhang’s method for using a field to indicate if HARQ retransmission or network coding should occur into Hwang1’s method for configuring HARQ retransmission and network coding. If retransmission and coding will occur, it makes sense to indicate as much through a dedicated field.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang1 (US 2019/0379489 A1) in view of Sun (US 2011/0176408 A1) and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 2019/0132089 A1, hereinafter “Hwang2”).
As to Claim 13:
The combination of Hwang1 and Sun does not explicitly disclose:
The first condition corresponding to a first data reception status
The second condition corresponds to a second data reception status
The third condition corresponds to a third data reception status
The second data reception status is better than the third data reception status
The first data reception status is between the first data reception status and the third data reception status
However, Hwang2 does describe a method to dynamically adjust HARQ feedback to the error rate in a network.
Specifically, Hwang2 teaches:
The first condition corresponding to a first data reception status
Paragraph 0178 of Hwang2 describes a threshold for “spread” of “spectral efficiency values” (Hwang2, 0178).
The second condition corresponds to a second data reception status
Paragraph 0178 of Hwang2 correlates the “spectral efficiency” with an “error fluctuation level”, i.e. a “second data reception status”.
The third condition corresponds to a third data reception status
Paragraph 0187 of Hwang2 describes a “third threshold” for a “intra-subframe error fluctuation level” which means if neither condition is met, it would qualify as a “third condition correspond[ing] to a third data reception status”.
The second data reception status is better than the third data reception status
Paragraph 0178 of Hwang2 describes two conditions based on “spectral efficiency metrics” and “error fluctuation level” so if one of these thresholds is met but not the other, this would be an intermediate reception status better than failing both thresholds but worse than passing both of them.
The first data reception status is between the second data reception status and the third data reception status
Paragraph 0178 of Hwang2 describes two conditions based on “spectral efficiency metrics” and “error fluctuation level” so if one of these thresholds is met but not the other, this would be an intermediate reception status better than failing both thresholds but worse than passing both of them.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the different tiers of reception quality described in Hwang2 into Hwang1’s method for configuring HARQ retransmission and network coding. HARQ retransmission and network coding are two different methods for making transmission more fault-tolerant, so it makes sense to deploy them in response to different levels of transmission errors.
As to Claim 14:
The combination of Hwang1 and Sun does not explicitly disclose:
The first condition corresponding to a first data reception status
The second condition corresponds to a second data reception status
The third condition corresponds to a third data reception status
The second data reception status is better than the third data reception status
The first data reception status is between the first data reception status and the third data reception status
However, Hwang2 does teach:
The first condition corresponding to a first data reception status
Paragraph 0178 of Hwang2 describes a threshold for “spread” of “spectral efficiency values” (Hwang2, 0178).
The second condition corresponds to a second data reception status
Paragraph 0178 of Hwang2 correlates the “spectral efficiency” with an “error fluctuation level”, i.e. a “second data reception status”.
The third condition corresponds to a third data reception status
Paragraph 0187 of Hwang2 describes a “third threshold” for a “intra-subframe error fluctuation level” which means if neither condition is met, it would qualify as a “third condition correspond[ing] to a third data reception status”.
The second data reception status is better than the third data reception status
Paragraph 0178 of Hwang2 describes two conditions based on “spectral efficiency metrics” and “error fluctuation level” so if one of these thresholds is met but not the other, this would be an intermediate reception status better than failing both thresholds but worse than passing both of them.
The first data reception status is between the first [second?] data reception status and the third data reception status
Paragraph 0178 of Hwang2 describes two conditions based on “spectral efficiency metrics” and “error fluctuation level” so if one of these thresholds is met but not the other, this would be an intermediate reception status better than failing both thresholds but worse than passing both of them.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the different tiers of reception quality described in Hwang2 into Hwang1’s method for configuring HARQ retransmission and network coding. HARQ retransmission and network coding are two different methods for making transmission more fault-tolerant, so it makes sense to deploy them in response to different levels of transmission errors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sun et al. (US 2023/0008375 A1) describes sending HARQ-ACKs for the fraction of correctly received code block groups.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Peter Welte whose telephone number is (703)756-5965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, EST.
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.
BENJAMIN PETER WELTE
Examiner
Art Unit 2477
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights