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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 and 21-30 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.
Examiner noted from the current amendment that Applicant seems to have removed “rateless coding” limitation only to replace it with a phrase (wordings) equivalent of the rateless coding process: rateless coding = transmission of rateless code until receiver respond with acknowledgement of successful receipt of the block of code/packets or a timeout (expiry) occurs. Examiner found multiple current prior art describing such rateless coding process, cited below.
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.
Claims 1-6, 11-13, 17-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rietman (US 2007/0275669) in view of Koslov (US20070025283), and further in view of Shapiro (US 2008/0165889).
Regarding claim 1, Rietman describes a method for wireless communication at a transmitting device (para. 32, wireless transmitting device), comprising:
generating encoded packets based at least in part on source packets comprising information for a receiving device (fig. 1, encoder 11 encoding outbound data (information/source) packets with [non-rate bound] code for a receiver, see fig. 2 transmitter 1 = transmit encoder 116 of fig. 1, & fig. 2 receiver of transmission);
generating sets of binary symbols based at least in part on the encoded packets (fig. 7 & para. 56-57, primary & secondary signals comprising original packets (binary codes/symbols) are modulated & transmitted digitally);
generating a respective set of coded symbols for each of the groups, the respective set of coded symbols for a group based at least in part on the one or more sets of binary symbols included in the group (para. 16-17, + claims 5, 11 & 18, the secondary message (set of coded symbols) embedded in the primary message is generated from a selection of a subset of a set of a modulation constellation (group) used by the first message, see also abstract),
transmitting, to the receiving device, a plurality of sets of coded symbols based at least in part on the generated respective sets of coded symbols (para. 6, transmitter transmits to a receiver first & secondary messages (respective sets of coded symbols generated from selection of set of modulation constellation used by the first message, para. 16).
Rietman fails to further explicitly describe:
selecting groups of sets of binary symbols, each of the groups comprising one or more of the sets of binary symbols.
Koslov also describes a communications system which may be wireless (para. 1 & 55), further describing:
selecting groups of sets of binary symbols, each of the groups comprising one or more of the sets of binary symbols (fig. 1 + abstract, transmitter transmitting an uplink multi-level modulated signal (hierarchical modulation or layered modulation) to the satellite transponder, where grouping of the M bits across the J symbol intervals or the grouping of the associated J symbols define a symbol group, para. 36).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to specify that the set of binary symbols be selected in groups as in Koslov for the transmission in Reitman.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this provides improvement to communication receiver performance when noise is present in a multi-level transmission scheme (Koslov, para. 4).
Rietman and Koslov combined fail to further explicitly describe:
wherein the encoded packets are generated based at least in part on the source packets and according to a rateless code until an acknowledgement message is receive for the encoded packets or a timeout condition occurs.
Shapiro also describes generating encoded packets for wireless communications (para. 2 & 25), further describing:
wherein the encoded packets are generated based at least in part on the source packets and according to a rateless code until an acknowledgement message is receive for the encoded packets or a timeout condition occurs (para. 25-26, constructs (generates) rateless block code into packets for transmission over wireless channel. If receiver is able to decode encode entire block code of packets, acknowledgement is return to sender, or if there is a timeout the transmitter will resend the encoded block code of packets). [Note: other prior art cited below each also describes definition of rateless/Fountain coding wherein receiver respond with ACK for successfully receiving groups of packets &/or existence of a timeout].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to specify that block code transmission in
the rateless block code in Rietman and Koslov be performed using rateless coding until receiver sends acknowledgment or a timer expiry as in Shapiro.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this enables system to opportunistically achieve a rate commensurate with the instantaneous channel conditions (Shapiro para. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Rietman, Koslov and Shapiro combined describe:
generating the source packets based at least in part on the information for the receiving device, wherein each of the source packets and each of the encoded packets comprises a first quantity of bits (Rietman, para. 32 or 35, transmitter encoding first & second messages in packet for transmitting to receiver abides to the respective protocols’ standard (quantity of bits), para. 11)
Regarding claim 3, Rietman, Koslov and Shapiro combined describe:
adding, to each of the encoded packets, an error-detecting code to obtain second encoded packets, each of the second encoded packets comprising a second quantity of bits greater than the first quantity of bits (Rietman, fig. 2 & para. 35, transmitter has cyclical redundancy check (CRC) unit 12 that appends a CRC checksum each encoded packet to be transmitted for receiving end’s verification).
Regarding claim 4, Rietman, Koslov and Shapiro combined describe:
wherein generating the sets of binary symbols comprises:
generating a respective set of binary symbols for each of the second encoded packets, the respective set of binary symbols for a second encoded packet based at least in part on modulating each bit included in the second encoded packet in accordance with a first modulation order (Rietman, para. 56 or abstract, secondary message is generated & embedded in the primary message via a selection of a subset of a set of a modulation constellation, such as 16, 64, or 256 quadrature amplitude modulation (first modulation order)).
Regarding claim 5, Rietman, Koslov and Shapiro combined describe:
wherein generating the respective set of coded symbols for a group of sets of binary symbols comprises mapping the one or more sets of binary symbols included in the group to coded symbols included in the respective set of coded symbols, the mapping based at least in part on a layered modulation constellation (Rietman, fig. 2 & para. 35, transmitter 1 comprises mapper 16 which maps primary & secondary messages (sets of binary symbols including in the group) to coded symbols based on set of modulation constellation, wherein the modulation is hierarchical (layered), para. 59).
Regarding claim 6, Rietman, Koslov and Shapiro combined describe:
generating the respective set of coded symbols for a group of sets of binary symbols comprises: identifying multiple sets of binary symbols included in the group of sets of binary symbols; and combining, across the multiple sets of binary symbols included in the group, corresponding binary symbols to obtain the respective set of coded symbols (Rietman, para. 6, first & second messages, each have its own sets of binary symbols in a group of sets of binary symbols, are combined & transmitted).
Regarding claim 11, Rietman, Koslov and Shapiro combined describe:
estimating a channel between the transmitting device and the receiving device, wherein a quantity of sets of binary symbols included in at least one of the groups of sets of binary symbols is selected based at least in part on a quality of the channel (Rietman, para. 54, # (quantity) of bits will increase for representing “0” & “1” when channel contains noise, per 802.11n standard which estimate the channel, para. 85).
Regarding claim 12, Rietman, Koslov and Shapiro combined describe:
transmitting, to the receiving device, an indication of a quantity of sets of binary symbols included in at least one of the groups of sets of binary symbols (Rietman, para. 19, transmitter indicates the modulation scheme being used, which is a subset of points [representing symbols] in a 16, 64 or 256 quadrature amplitude modulation signal, para. 56).
Regarding claim 13, Rietman, Koslov and Shapiro combined describe:
wherein the groups of sets of binary symbols are disjoint (Rietman, para. 19, transmitter indicates the modulation scheme being used, which is a subset of points [representing binary symbols] non-overlapped (disjoint) in a 16, 64 or 256 quadrature amplitude modulation signal, para. 56).
Regarding claim 17, Reitman describes a method for wireless communication at a receiving device, comprising:
receiving, from a transmitting device, sets of coded symbols, each of the sets of coded symbols generated based at least in part on one or more corresponding sets of binary symbols (fig. 1 & 3 and para. 16-17, + claims 5, 11 & 18, receiver 2 receives from transmitter the secondary message (set of coded symbols) embedded in the primary message generated from a selection of a subset of a set of a modulation constellation (group) used by the first message, see also abstract),
decoding sets of binary symbols within the plurality of sets of binary symbols to obtain encoded packets (fig. 3 & para. 36, receiver’s decoder 24 decodes inbound data (information/source) packets with [non-rate bound] code for a receiver, see fig. 2 transmitter 1 = transmit encoder 116 of fig. 1, & fig. 2 receiver of transmission);
determining that a quantity of the encoded packets exceeds a threshold based at least on the generating; and decoding the encoded packets to obtain corresponding source packets comprising information for the receiving device, the decoding based at least in part on the quantity of the encoded packets exceeding the threshold (fig. 3 & para. 36, receiver 2 has watermark detector 27 which detects watermark (receipt) of message (quantity of encoded packet) to regenerate both first & [extracted] secondary messages, a reverse of steps of the watermark embedder 17 in the transmitter).
Rietman fails to further explicitly describe:
generating, for each of the sets of coded symbols, the one or more sets of binary symbols corresponding to the set of coded symbols to obtain a plurality of sets of binary symbols.
Koslov also describes a communications system which may be wireless (para. 1 & 55), further describing:
generating, for each of the sets of coded symbols, the one or more sets of binary symbols corresponding to the set of coded symbols to obtain a plurality of sets of binary symbols (fig. 1 + abstract, receiver receives from transmitter multi-level modulated signal (hierarchical modulation or layered modulation), where signal involves grouping of the M bits across the J symbol intervals or the grouping of the associated J symbols defining a symbol group, para. 36).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to specify that the set of binary symbols be selected in groups for transmission as in Koslov.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this provides improvement to communication receiver performance when noise is present in a multi-level transmission scheme (Koslov, para. 4).
Rietman and Koslov combined fail to further explicitly describe:
wherein the encoded packets are generated based at least in part on the source packets and according to a rateless code until an acknowledgement message is receive for the encoded packets or a timeout condition occurs.
Shapiro also describes generating encoded packets for wireless communications (para. 2 & 25), further describing:
wherein the encoded packets are generated based at least in part on the source packets and according to a rateless code until an acknowledgement message is receive for the encoded packets or a timeout condition occurs (para. 25-26, constructs (generates) rateless block code into packets for transmission over wireless channel. If receiver is able to decode encode entire block code of packets, acknowledgement is return to sender, or if there is a timeout the transmitter will resend the encoded block code of packets). [Note: other prior art cited below each also describes definition of rateless/Fountain coding wherein receiver respond with ACK for successfully receiving groups of packets &/or existence of a timeout].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to specify that block code transmission in
the rateless block code in Rietman and Koslov be performed using rateless coding until receiver sends acknowledgment or a timer expiry as in Shapiro.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this enables system to opportunistically achieve a rate commensurate with the instantaneous channel conditions (Shapiro para. 7).
Regarding claim 18, Rietman, Koslov and Shapiro combined describe:
checking for errors associated with the plurality of sets of binary symbols, wherein the encoded packets each correspond to a respective decoded set of binary symbols that is identified as error-free based at least in part on the checking (Reitman, fig. 3 & para. 36, cyclic redundancy check (CRC) unit 26 checks for errors of the received information symbols, otherwise error-free).
Regarding claim 19, Rietman, Koslov and Shapiro combined describe:
wherein generating the one or more sets of binary symbols for a set of coded symbols included in the sets of coded symbols comprises:
demodulating the set of coded symbols based at least in part on a layered modulation constellation (Reitman, para. 59, receiver extracts (demodulates) all hierarchical (layered) modulated information (set of coded symbols) per the modulation constellation, para. 16 & fig. 7).
Regarding claim 21, Rietman, Koslov and Shapiro combined describe:
wherein a quantity of sets of binary symbols generated from a set of coded symbols included in the sets of coded symbols is based at least in part on a quality of a channel between the transmitting device and the receiving device (Reitman, para. 54, # (quantity) of bits will increase for representing “0” & “1” when channel contains noise, per 802.11n standard which estimate the channel, para. 85).
Regarding claim 22, Rietman, Koslov and Shapiro combined describe:
receiving, from the transmitting device, an indication of a quantity of sets of binary symbols used to generate a set of coded symbols included in the sets of coded symbols (Reitman, para. 19, transmitter transmits to receiver with indication of the modulation scheme being used, which is a subset of points [representing symbols] in a 16, 64 or 256 quadrature amplitude modulation signal, para. 56).
Claim 14-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reitman in view of Koslov and Shapiro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pan (US 2019/0215133).
Regarding claim 14, Rietman, Koslov and Shapiro combined describe hierarchical modulation (para. 56), further comprising:
wherein generating the respective sets of coded symbols comprises generating sets of coded symbols within the plurality of sets of coded symbols until the message is received (fig. 1, encoder 11 [continuously] encoding outbound data (information/source) packets of primary & secondary signals comprising original packets (binary codes/symbols) are modulated & transmitted to receiver).
Rietman, Koslov and Shapiro fail to further explicitly describe:
receiving, from the receiving device, a message indicating that the information included in the source packets has been successfully received at the receiving device.
Pan also describes wireless transmission using hierarchical modulation (abstract), further describing:
receiving, from the receiving device, a message indicating that the information included in the source packets has been successfully received at the receiving device (para. 75 & 79, [receiving] communication device incorporates use of control messages of ACK to indicate successful reception of data).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to specify that the receiving device of Rietman, Koslov and Shapiro to indicate that it has successfully received information in source packets as in Pan.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this enables provision of the instantaneous channel state information by a communication device (Pan, para. 79).
Regarding claim 15, Rietman, Koslov and Shapiro combined describe the plurality of sets of coded symbols are transmitted based at least in part on the mapping (fig. 2 & para. 35, transmitter 1 comprises mapper 16 which maps messages (sets of binary symbols including in the group) to coded symbols based on set of modulation constellation for transmission, wherein the modulation is hierarchical (layered), para. 59), but fails to further explicitly describe:
mapping the plurality of sets of coded symbols to respective sets of resource elements, wherein the plurality of sets of coded symbols are transmitted based at least in part on the mapping.
Pan also describes wireless transmission using hierarchical modulation (abstract), further describing:
mapping the plurality of sets of coded symbols to respective sets of resource elements, wherein the plurality of sets of coded symbols are transmitted based at least in part on the mapping (para. 96 in view of 76, bit-stream per OFDM (code) symbols mapped to subset of resource elements of the transmission).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to specify that the plurality set of coded symbols of Rietman, Koslov and Shapiro to map them to respective sets of resource elements as in Pan.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this enables provision of the instantaneous channel state information by a communication device (Pan, para. 79).
Regarding claim 20, Rietman, Koslov and Shapiro combined fail to further explicitly describe:
transmitting, to the transmitting device, a message indicating that the information included in the corresponding source packets has been successfully received at the receiving device.
Pan also describes wireless transmission using hierarchical modulation (abstract), further describing:
transmitting, to the transmitting device, a message indicating that the information included in the corresponding source packets has been successfully received at the receiving device. (para. 75 & 79, [receiving] communication device incorporates use of control messages of ACK to transmit back to transmitting device to indicate successful reception of data).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to specify that the receiving device of Rietman, Koslov and Shapiro to indicate that it has successfully received information in source packets as in Pan.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this enables provision of the instantaneous channel state information by a communication device (Pan, para. 79).
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reitman in view of Koslov and Shapiro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ye (US 2008/0181163).
Regarding claim 16, Reitman and Koslov combined describe coding by encoder for transmission (Reitman, fig. 1-2), but fails to further describing:
wherein the rateless code is a fountain code.
Ye also describes wireless transmission with coding (fig. 6), further describing:
wherein the rateless code is a fountain code (para. 4, know coding technique of rateless codes, also known as fountain codes).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to specify that the coding of Rietman, Koslov and Shapiro to be rateless code (= fountain code) as in Ye.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this avoids inefficiency in wireless systems when receivers recover data that they already posses (Ye, para. 3-4).
Claims 23-28 are apparatus claims comprising processor & memory to perform the method for transmitting apparatus claims 1-6 respectively. Hence, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 29-30 are apparatus claims comprising processor & memory to perform the method for receiving apparatus claims 17-18 respectively. Hence, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Medard (US 2020/0358643) describing rateless codes that operate on blocks of data and transmit redundancy until acknowledgement of decoding is provided to the encoder; (para. 4), Effros (US 2019/0245604) describing
decoder transmits a acknowledgment message to the encoder(s) at the end of every potential decoding time period that indicates whether or not the decoder is ready to decode the transmitted message at that time. If the decoder is not yet ready to decode the message, then the transmitters continue to transmit the message using the rateless code. When the decoder is ready to decode, receipt of the appropriate message indicating this fact by the transmitters indicates that active transmitters can commence transmitting a new message using the rateless code (para. 11), Han (US 2019/0081746) describing rateless transmission (abstract & fig. 2 & 6), Sun (US 2015/0358121) describing describes rateless coding where acknowledgement 1631 is sent when payload 101 is received (para. 20), Koslov (US 2010/0067614) describing
method 700 for receiving codewords encoded with a rateless code. As indicated a codeword encoded with a rateless code is received 702. The operation of receiving the rateless encoded codeword 702 is an ongoing operation. During receipt, a time interval is monitored 704 to determine if the time interval has expired. (fig. 7 & para. 60),
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WARNER WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-8197. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am - 3:30pm.
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, Ian Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
WARNER WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2469
/WARNER WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights