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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/5/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112 rejection of claims 4 and 10, the phrase “particular distance” is ambiguous because it is unclear what distance is considered to be the “particular” distance.
Regarding the 103 rejections, Applicant argues that the FIFO buffer of Farjadrad does not teach or suggest “processing code blocks received in a subframe in a priority order defined by a code block priority sorting stage” as claimed because the FIFO is not a priority sorting stage.
The Examiner disagrees and asserts that the FIFO buffer of Farjadrad is a priority sorting stage that defines a priority order. The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Edition defines FIFO: Pertaining to a system in which the
next item to exit the system is the item that has been in the system for the longest time. In other words, a FIFO defines a priority order for each item in which the item that has been in the buffer for the longest time is given highest priority. Therefore, the FIFO buffer of Farjadrad functions as a priority sorting stage for defining a priority order of received blocks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “particular distance” in claims 4 and 10 is ambiguous because it is unclear what distance is considered to be the “particular” distance.
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farjadrad (US Pat. 7,805,642) in view of Zhang et al (US Pat. 6,233,709; hereinafter referred to as Zhang) in view of Shattil (US Pat. Pub. 2015/0244430).
As per claims 1, 7: Farjadrad teaches a method and non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions for providing communication Forward Error Correction (FEC) optimization for virtualized platforms, comprising:
calculating a cut off time used to terminate total FEC processing duration (Fig. 4, 408; col. 5, lines 15-17);
processing code blocks received in a subframe in a priority order defined by a code block priority sorting stage (Fig. 4, 404: code blocks processed in first-in first-out order; Fig. 3, 302-304); and
wherein processing code blocks comprises:
checking if a current time has exceeded the cut off time cut off value (Fig. 4; determining whether the output of 408=0 which indicates that the current time has not exceeded the cut off time cut off value, or whether the output of 408=1 which indicates that the current time has exceeded the cut off time cut off value);
when the current time has exceeded the cut off time value (Fig. 4, output of 408=1), then setting a Cyclic Redundancy Code (CRC) FAIL (Fig. 4, output of 406=1 which indicates FAIL because no convergence has occurred before the maximum cut off time of 408) and moving onto a next code block without decoding (col. 5, lines 17-20);
when the current time has not exceeded the cut off time value (Fig. 4, output of 406=0), then running a single iteration of decoding and checking a code block CRC (Fig. 3, 306-308; col. 4, lines 18-21);
when the code block CRC is PASS then decoding is successful and moving onto a next code block (col. 5, lines 10-13).
Not explicitly disclosed is:
when the code block CRC is FAIL then checking if a maximum number of FEC iterations has been reached;
when maximum number of FEC iterations has not been reached repeating the steps of calculating and processing code blocks; and
when maximum number of FEC iterations has been reached then moving onto the next code block.
However, Zhang in an analogous art teaches:
when the code block CRC is FAIL (Fig. 2, 208 NO) then checking if a maximum number of FEC iterations has been reached (Fig. 2, 214);
when maximum number of FEC iterations has not been reached (Fig. 2, 214 YES) repeating the steps of calculating and processing code blocks (Fig. 2, 216); and
when maximum number of FEC iterations has been reached (Fig. 2, 214 NO) then moving onto the next code block (Fig. 2, 220 YES).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further determine a maximum number of iterations as a stopping criteria in the iterative decoder of Farjadrad as taught by Zhang.
This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because Farjadrad suggests that the number of iterations is finite and should be considered (col. 1, lines 62-65).
Also not explicitly disclosed is performing the method in a virtualized distributed unit (DU) environment on a generalized computing platform. However, Shattil in an analogous art teaches performing error correction (paragraphs 254 and 261) in a virtualized distributed unit (Fig. 18; paragraphs 32,183, and 247) of a generalized computing platform (Fig. 24B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to perform the method of Farjadrad and Zhang in a virtualized distributed unit environment. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because virtualization would have reduced cost and processing requirements (paragraph 258).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Farjadrad in view of Zhang in view of Shattil in view of Asati et al (US Pat. Pub. 2009/0213726; hereinafter referred to as Asati).
As per claims 2, 8: Farjadrad et al teach the method of claim 1 and 7. Not explicitly disclosed is: dynamically allocating compute allocation for FEC in the virtualized DU environment. However, Asati in an analogous art teaches dynamically allocating FEC compute resources (paragraph 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to dynamically allocate compute resources for FEC in the virtualized DU environment of Farjadrad et al. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because it would have reduced cost (paragraph 18).
As per claims 3, 9: Farjadrad et al teach the method of claim 1 and 7. Not explicitly disclosed is: dynamically decreasing compute allocation for FEC in the virtualized DU environment as load increases at a virtualized DU. However, Asati in an analogous art teaches dynamically allocating FEC compute resources (paragraph 18; dynamic allocation means that compute resources are increased or decreased dynamically).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to dynamically allocate compute resources for FEC in the virtualized DU environment of Farjadrad et al. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because it would have reduced cost (paragraph 18).
Claim(s) 4, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farjadrad in view of Zhang in view of Shattil in view of Aktas et al (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0322371; hereinafter referred to as Aktas).
As per claims 4, 10:
Farjadrad et al teach the method of claim 1 and 7. Not explicitly disclosed is: prioritizing users at a particular distance range based on at least one of: physical location information; relative distance information; link attenuation measurement. However, Aktas in an analogous art teaches prioritizing users at a high distance based on relative distance information (paragraph 94).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to prioritize users at high distance. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because it was one of a known prioritization criteria for multiple users, as shown by Aktas.
Claim(s) 5, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farjadrad in view of Zhang in view of Shattil in view of Yang et al (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0160784; hereinafter referred to as Yang).
As per claims 5, 11: Farjadrad et al teach the method of claim 1 and 7. Not explicitly disclosed is: at the code block priority stage, prioritizing users based on at least one of: power loop control indication and link adaptation indication. However, Yang in an analogous art teaches prioritizing users based on power loop control information (paragraphs 16, 106).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine priority based on power loop control information. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because it was a known method for determining and prioritizing power level as shown by Yang.
Claim(s) 6, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farjadrad in view of Zhang in view of Shattil in view of Makki et al (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0173792; hereinafter referred to as Makki).
As per claims 6, 12: Farjadrad et al teach the method of claim 1 and 7. Not explicitly disclosed is: at the code block priority stage, prioritizing decoding using one of range-biased sorting and highest decoding probability sorting. However, Makki in an analogous art teaches prioritizing decoding using highest decoding probability sorting (paragraphs 12 and 91).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to prioritize the decoding of Farjadrad et al based on highest decoding probability sorting. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because it would have increased end-to-end throughput and load balancing (paragraph 13).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-7.
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, April Blair can be reached at 571-270-1014. 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.
/STEVE N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111