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 12/14/2025 has been received and considered by the examiner. Claims 1, 3, and 7 were amended, and all uncancelled claims remain pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because it contains numerous typographical errors. These include “cause the apparatus to: encoding ...”, “wherein the send data ... comprises”, “sending the first subset of CBS” (which presumably should read “sending the first subset of CBs”), and “in repose that the reception status of the first data meets a third condition”. If left unaddressed, these deficiencies could be grounds for a rejection under U.S.C. 112(b). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is also objected to because it contains a typographical error: “generated by network coding on least part of the first data”.
Claim 7 is also objected to because it contains a typographical error: “cause the apparatus to: encoding”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10 and 11 are also objected to because they contain typographical errors: “in response that”. Claim 10 also recites “perform network coding on ... the new data into second network coded data”. Appropriate correction is required.
If these errors are not corrected, they may be grounds for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the future.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7-8, and 10-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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).
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.
Encoding 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 faut tolerance).
Determining, from the first set of CBs or CBGs, the first subset of CBs or CBGs for HARQ retransmission, wherein the first subset 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”.
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.
Selecting at least part of the plurality of second encoded data units as the network-coded data in the second subset of CBs or CBGs; and
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”).
Sending 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:
Re-encoding 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:
Re-encoding 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.
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 network coding as an alternative to HARQ retransmission when an uplink transmission fails, so it would be obvious to combine it with HARQ retransmission in Hwang1’s method.
As to Claim 3 and 7:
Hwang1 teaches:
One or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to store a program comprising 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 code 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”.
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.
Selecting 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.
Therefore, although Hwang does1 not explicitly describe separately activating HARQ retransmission and network coding in response to different conditions, its description of conditionally activating both fault tolerance methods together still renders obvious the claimed activation of each feature individually. Such separate activation of each fault tolerance method in isolation can mitigate the risk of another failed transmission without introducing double redundancy through both retransmission and coding, making it an obvious modification to the method Hwang1 describes.
Hwang1 also does not explicitly disclose:
The second set of CBs or CBGs is generated by network coding on least part of the first data
Re-encoding 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 to generate a plurality of second encoded data units that comprise data of the plurality of original data units
However, Sun does teach:
The second set of CBs or CBGs is generated by network coding on least part of the first data
Paragraph 0057 of Sun describes “network coding the HARQ retransmission”. Although Sun does not explicitly mention “CBs or CBGs”, these data units are taught in Hwang, so this passage from Sun renders encoding them obvious.
Re-encoding 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.
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 network coding as an alternative to HARQ retransmission when an uplink transmission fails, so it would be obvious to combine it with HARQ retransmission in Hwang1’s method.
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 2019/0132089 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 into 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 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 teach:
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 second 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.
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 (US 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
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 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.
/B.P.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2477
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477