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 IDS submitted on 10/06/2025 has been received and considered by the examiner.
The amendment submitted on 01/16/2026 has been received and considered by the examiner. Claims 1, 11, 18, and 28 were amended, and all uncancelled claims 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
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on page 14 of their remarks that “Kalhan does not disclose a first component is configured to provide a backhaul connection to a parent node of the network, and a second component is configured to provide a backhaul connection to at least one of the child node or an access link to the user equipment [emphasis in original]”.
However, the examiner disagrees with this assertion. With respect to Fig. 1 of Kalhan and the accompanying description in paragraph 0017, the “UE 106” corresponds to the child node, the “signal-forwarding device 102” corresponds to the claimed device, and “the base station 104” corresponds to the parent node. Furthermore, Kalhan states that “[t]he base station 104 is connected to a core network 110 through a backhaul 112”. This demonstrates that the connection between the “signal-forwarding device” and “the base station 104” is also a “backhaul connection”, as claimed, because the signal-forwarding device is linked to the core network (i.e. a “backhaul connection” exists) via the base station.
Also, the “UE 106” in Fig. 1 renders obvious both a “child node” and “an access link to a user equipment” because the UE itself could be considered a child node, and the traffic exchanged between the UE and the forwarding device (elements 124 and 116 in Fig. 1) demonstrate that an “access link” connects the UE to the signal-forwarding device in Fig. 1.
Thus, the new independent claim limitations do not distinguish the claimed invention from Kalhan, and the rejection based on Kalhan in view of Guan is properly 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) 1-6, 12, 15, 18-23, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalhan et al. (US 2019/0081696 A1, hereinafter “Kalhan”) in view of Guan et al. (US 2019/0334664 A1, hereinafter “Guan”).
As to Claim 1:
Kalhan describes a method for dynamically determining whether to employ amplification-based relaying or decoding-based relaying during backhaul.
Specifically, Kalhan teaches:
An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus
(“For the example of Fig. 1, the signal forwarding device 102 includes ... controller 136 ... The controller 136 includes any combination of hardware, software, and/or firmware for executing the functions described herein ... An example of a suitable controller 136 includes code running on a microprocessor or processor arrangement” (Kalhan, 0021).
Here, “the signal forwarding device 102” maps to “an apparatus”,
“includes” maps to “comprising”,
“controller 136” maps to “at least one processor”, and
“any combination of hardware, software, and/or firmware for executing the functions described herein” maps to “at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus”).
Receive ... in a first time domain resource allocation from a parent node of a network
(“The signal forwarding device 102 receives the instruction 144 and, in response to the instruction 144, applies the selected signal forwarding scheme to the incoming signal(s).... [T]he controller 136 applies the selected signal forwarding scheme to the incoming signal by invoking the signal forwarding processor 131” (Kalhan, 0035). Also, Fig. 1 in Kalhan shows an example relay node receiving and transmitting various signals.
Here, “the incoming signals” map to “receive ... in a first time domain resource allocation”, and
element 114 in Fig. 1, the “incoming DL”, maps to “receive ... from a parent node of a network).
Decode at least a first subset
(“[T]he controller 136 manages the relay processor 134 to apply the appropriate signal forwarding scheme and level of decoding/processing to the incoming signal” (Kalhan, 0035).
Here, “apply ... decoding ... to the incoming signal” maps to “decode at least a first subset”).
Transmit at least the first subset ... at a second time domain resource allocation to a child node of the network or a user equipment
(“[T]he controller 136 manages the relay processor 134 to apply the appropriate signal forwarding scheme and level of decoding/processing to the incoming signal” (Kalhan, 0035). Also, Fig. 1 in Kalhan shows an example relay node receiving and transmitting various signals.
Here, “apply ... forwarding” maps to “transmit at least the first subset ... at a second time domain resource allocation”, and
element 120 in Fig. 1, “forwarded DL”, maps to “transmit ... to a child node of the network or a user equipment”).
The ... first subset is determined at least based on a processing time for decoding the first set ... or a latency target ... or channel quality parameters of a link
(“The scheduler 108 evaluates the channel characteristics 202, and possibly other channel information, to select signal forwarding scheme to be used by the signal forwarding device 102.... The selection may be based on several parameters or information in addition to the channel information 148. Some examples of data that may be evaluated by the scheduler 108 to select the scheme include processing latency at the signal forwarding device, the required quality of service (QoS) for the link to the UE device” (Kalhan, 0033).
“signal forwarding” maps to “the first subset”,
“evaluates ... to select” maps to “is determined based on”,
“processing latency” maps to “a processing time for decoding the first set” from the list of “at least based on a processing time for deciding the first set ... or a latency target ... or channel quality parameters of a link”, and
“quality of service (QoS) for the link” maps to “channel quality parameters of a link” from the list of “at least based on a processing time for deciding the first set ... or a latency target ... or channel quality parameters of a link”).
A first component is configured to provide a backhaul connection to the parent node of the network
(“The base station 104 [in Fig. 1] is connected to a core network 110 through a backhaul 112 in accordance with known techniques” (Kalhan, 0017).
Here, “receiver 130” in Fig. 1 maps to “a first component”,
“connected ... through a backhaul” maps to “configured to provide a backhaul connection”, and
a node in the “core network 110” maps to “the parent node of the network”).
A second component is configured to provide a backhaul connection to at least one of the child node or an access link to the user equipment
(“[A] scheduler 108 assigns communication resources for serving the UE device 106” (Kalhan, 0017).
Here, “transmitter 128” maps to “a second component”,
“serving” maps to “is configured to provide a backhaul connection”, and
“the UE device” fulfills the broadest reasonable interpretation of both “the child node” and “an access link to the user equipment”).
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
A plurality of code blocks of a transport block arranged in a first time domain resource allocation
The first subset of code blocks of the transport block
However, Guan does describe a method for sending transport blocks comprising multiple code blocks.
Specifically, Gaun teaches:
A plurality of code blocks of a transport block arranged in a first time domain resource allocation
(“[O]ne TB In 5G is divided into more CBs (code block) ... [T]he method further includes ... sending ... first scheduling information used to schedule the first transport block” (0007, 0023-0024).
Here, “more CBs” map to “a plurality of code blocks”,
“one TB” maps to “a transport block”, and
“scheduling information” maps to “a first time domain resource allocation”).
The first subset of code blocks of the transport block
(“[T]he division manner may be a division manner based on logical sequence numbers of the CBs. For example, a CB 1 to a CB 12 form a CBG 1, a CB 13 to a CB 24 form a CBG 2, a CB 25 to a CB 36 form a CBG 3, and a CB 37 to a CB 48 form a CBG 4” (Guan, 0139).
Here, “CBG 1” maps to “the first subset of code blocks of the transport block”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to structure the flow of forwarded data described in Kalhan using transport blocks and code blocks, as taught in Guan. Transport blocks and code blocks are a basic format for cellular data, so it would be obvious to subdivide data into them.
As to Claim 2:
Kalhan teaches:
Amplify at least a ... subset
(“[T]he incoming signal is amplified and retransmitted as the forwarded signal” (Kalhan, 0020).
Here, “amplified” maps to “amplify”, and
“the incoming signal” maps to “at least a ... subset”).
Transmit at least the amplified ... subset
(“[T]he incoming signal is amplified and retransmitted as the forwarded signal” (Kalhan, 0020).
Here, “retransmitted” maps to “transmit”, and
“the incoming signal” which is “amplified” maps to “at least the amplified ... subset”).
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
At least a second subset of code blocks
Transmit at least the ... second subset of code blocks of the transport block at the second time domain resource allocation prior to the first subset of code blocks
However, Guan does teach:
At least a second subset of code blocks
(“[T]he division manner may be a division manner based on logical sequence numbers of the CBs. For example, a CB 1 to a CB 12 form a CBG 1, a CB 13 to a CB 24 form a CBG 2, a CB 25 to a CB 36 form a CBG 3, and a CB 37 to a CB 48 form a CBG 4” (Guan, 0139).
Here, “CBG 2” maps to “at least a second subset of code blocks”).
Transmit at least the ... second subset of code blocks of the transport block at the second time domain resource allocation prior to the first subset of code blocks
(“Because a resource mapping rule of the CBs is frequency-first time-second mapping, different elements may be decoded sequentially according to a buffering time sequence without waiting until all CBs are buffered for joint processing. Then, for a CB corresponding to an element that is mapped and sent first, the terminal device may decode the CB first” (Guan, 0219).
Here, “an element that is mapped and sent first” maps to ‘transmit at least the ... second subset of code blocks of the transport block ... prior to the first subset of code blocks” because this shows the code blocks can be sent out-of-order, and
a second “resource mapping” for “time” maps to “the second time domain resource allocation”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Guan’s method for sending certain segments of a transport block early to Kalhan’s method for switching between amplified forwarding and decoded forwarding because AF is much faster than DF and will therefore have data ready to transmit much sooner.
As to Claim 3:
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
Indicate an order of at least the first and the second subset of code blocks of the transport block at the second time domain resource allocation and the number of code blocks within the first and the second subset of code blocks to the child node of the user equipment
However, Guan does teach:
Indicate an order of at least the first and the second subset of code blocks of the transport block at the second time domain resource allocation and the number of code blocks within the first and the second subset of code blocks to the child node of the user equipment
(“[T]he second indication information is used to indicate an identifier, a location, or a sequence number of the retransmitted code block in the first transport block ... The radio access network device may notify the terminal device of a current specific division manner by using RRC signaling” (Guan, 0163, 0192).
Here, “indicate” maps to “indicate ... to the child node of the user equipment”,
“a sequence number” maps to “an order”,
“the retransmitted code block” maps to “at least the first and the second subset of code blocks of the transport block at the second time domain resource allocation” because this “retransmitted code block” is a generic example which describes each retransmitted code block in a sequence, and
“sequence number” maps to “the number of code blocks within the first and the second subset of code blocks” because the last (i.e. the largest) sequence number will communicate the total number of blocks in a given subset).
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 Guan’s practice of indicating an order of transmitted code blocks into Kalhan’s method for forwarding signals. Indicating the order of code blocks can help the receiving device reassemble them after receiving the code blocks out of order.
As to Claim 4:
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
Divide the plurality of code blocks of the transport block arranged in the first time domain resource allocation into a plurality of subsets of code blocks
Decode each of the subsets of code blocks
Arrange the subsets of code blocks at the second time domain resource allocation in the same temporal order as received in the first time domain resource allocation
However, Guan does teach:
Divide the plurality of code blocks of the transport block arranged in the first time domain resource allocation into a plurality of subsets of code blocks
(“[T]he division manner may be a division manner based on logical sequence numbers of the CBs. For example, a CB 1 to a CB 12 form a CBG 1, a CB 13 to a CB 24 form a CBG 2, a CB 25 to a CB 36 form a CBG 3, and a CB 37 to a CB 48 form a CBG 4” (Guan, 0139).
Here, “division” maps to “divide ... into a plurality of subsets”,
“CB1 to a CB 12” maps to “the plurality of code blocks of the transport block ... into a plurality of subsets of codeblocks”, and
“CBG 1” maps to “code blocks ... in the first time domain resource allocation” because a code block group is a set of code blocks scheduled to be sent together).
Decode each of the subsets of code blocks
(“For a CB corresponding to an element that is mapped and sent later, the terminal device may decode the CB later” (Kalhan, 0219).
Here, “decode the CB” maps to “decode each of the subsets of code blocks”).
Arrange the subsets of code blocks at the second time domain resource allocation in the same temporal order as received in the first time domain resource allocation
(“During retransmission of the retransmitted code block, based on the foregoing selected division manner, the 2-bit field in the first field during initial transmission may be reused as the two indication bits in the second field, to further indicate which code block is the current retransmitted code block in this division manner” (Guan, 0197).
Here, “indicate which code block is” maps to “arrange the subsets of code blocks ... in the same temporal order”,
“initial transmission” maps to “code blocks at the second time domain resource allocation”, and
“retransmitted code block” maps to “code blocks ... received in the first time domain resource allocation”).
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 Guan’s method of reordering code blocks that were transmitted out of order into Kalhan’s method for forwarding packets. Reordering the code blocks is a necessary aspect of sending any ordered transmission in out-of-order chunks.
As to Claim 5:
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
Each subset of code blocks comprises only one code block
However, Guan does teach:
Each subset of code blocks comprises only one code block
(“[T]he division manner may be a division manner based on logical sequence numbers of the CBs. For example, a CB 1 to a CB 12 form a CBG 1, a CB 13 to a CB 24 form a CBG 2, a CB 25 to a CB 36 form a CBG 3, and a CB 37 to a CB 48 form a CBG 4” (Guan, 0139).
Here, “a CB 1” maps to “each subset of code blocks comprises only one code block”).
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 Guan’s practice of subdividing transmissions into code blocks into Kalhan’s method for forwarding packets. Code blocks are a common format for segmenting packets that would be useful to forward.
As to Claim 6:
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
Perform error check for each code block after decoding
However, Guan does teach:
Perform error check for each code block after decoding
(“[A]fter UE decodes each CB, it may be determined, through the CRC check, whether a current CB is correctly decoded” (Guan, 0112).
Here, “the CRC check” maps to “perform error check”, and
“each CB” maps to “each code block”, and
“after UE decodes” maps to “after decoding”).
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 Guan’s method of error checking decoded code blocks into Kalhan’s method for forwarding packets. Error checking is a basic fault tolerance technique that can make the relayed communications more reliable.
As to Claim 12:
Kalhan teaches:
Receive, from the parent node, control information relating at least to ... parameters enabling to perform amplifying and/or decoding
(“[A] signal forwarding scheme is based on the parameters, techniques, and/or level of processing applied to the incoming signal to generate the forwarded signal.... At step 606 [in Fig. 6], a signal forwarding scheme instruction 144 is received from the base station 104” (Kalhan, 0020, 0054).
Here, “received” maps to “receive”,
“the base station 104” maps to “the parent node”,
“forwarding scheme instruction 144” maps to “control information related at least to ... amplifying and/or decoding”, and
“parameters ... to generate the forwarded signal” map to “parameters enabling to perform amplifying and/or decoding”).
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
Control information relating at least to size of the transport block
The code blocks
However, Guan teaches:
Control information relating at least to size of the transport block
(“[T]he MCS indexes 0 to 28 and a time-frequency resource allocation field in control information are jointly used to determine a payload size of a transport block or a code block” (Guan, 0199).
Here, “control information” maps to “control information”,
“used to determine” maps to “relating at least to”, and
“a payload size ... of a transport block” maps to “the transport block”).
The code blocks
(“[O]ne TB in 5G is divided into more CBs (code block)” (Guan, 0007).
Here, “CBs (code block)” maps to “the code blocks”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Guan’s practice of indicating the size of a transport block into Kalhan’s method for forwarding packets. Control information is commonly used to configure transport blocks and would be an obvious part of sending data in that format.
As to Claim 15:
From the list of:
The apparatus comprises a repeater, a relay, a smart repeater, an Integrated Access and Backhaul node or a user equipment functioning as relay or a smart repeater
Kalhan at least teaches:
The apparatus comprises a repeater, a relay, [or] an Integrated Access and Backhaul node
(“Some communication systems utilize a signal forwarding device, such as a repeater station, relay station or a self-backhauled station to facilitate the transfer of information between user equipment (UE) devices and a core network” (Kalhan, 0003).
Here, “signal forwarding device” maps to “the apparatus”,
“a repeater station” maps to “a repeater”,
“relay station” maps to “a relay”, and
“a self-backhauled station” maps to “an Integrated Access and Backhaul node”).
As to Claim 16:
From the list of:
The child node comprises an Integrated Access and Backhaul node, a repeater or a user equipment
Kalhan at least teaches:
The child node comprises ... a user equipment
(“The signal forwarding scheme may be applied by the signal forwarding device to forward signals from the base station to a user equipment (UE)” (Kalhan, 0004).
Here, “a user equipment” maps to “the child node comprises ... a user equipment”).
As to Claim 18:
Kalhan teaches:
Receiving ... in a first time domain resource allocation from a parent node
(“The signal forwarding device 102 receives the instruction 144 and, in response to the instruction 144, applies the selected signal forwarding scheme to the incoming signal(s).... [T]he controller 136 applies the selected signal forwarding scheme to the incoming signal by invoking the signal forwarding processor 131” (Kalhan, 0035). Also, Fig. 1 in Kalhan shows an example relay node receiving and transmitting various signals.
Here, “the incoming signals” map to “receiving ... in a first time domain resource allocation”, and
element 114 in Fig. 1, the “incoming DL”, maps to “receive ... from a parent node).
Decoding at least a first subset
(“[T]he controller 136 manages the relay processor 134 to apply the appropriate signal forwarding scheme and level of decoding/processing to the incoming signal” (Kalhan, 0035).
Here, “apply ... decoding ... to the incoming signal” maps to “decoding at least a first subset”).
Transmitting at least the first subset ... at a second time domain resource allocation to a child node or a user equipment
(“[T]he controller 136 manages the relay processor 134 to apply the appropriate signal forwarding scheme and level of decoding/processing to the incoming signal” (Kalhan, 0035). Also, Fig. 1 in Kalhan shows an example relay node receiving and transmitting various signals.
Here, “apply ... forwarding” maps to “transmitting at least the first subset ... at a second time domain resource allocation”, and
element 120 in Fig. 1, “forwarded DL”, maps to “transmitting ... to a child node or a user equipment”).
The ... first subset is determined at least based on a processing time for decoding the first set ... or a latency target ... or channel quality parameters of a link
(“The scheduler 108 evaluates the channel characteristics 202, and possibly other channel information, to select signal forwarding scheme to be used by the signal forwarding device 102.... The selection may be based on several parameters or information in addition to the channel information 148. Some examples of data that may be evaluated by the scheduler 108 to select the scheme include processing latency at the signal forwarding device, the required quality of service (QoS) for the link to the UE device” (Kalhan, 0033).
Here, “signal forwarding” maps to “the first subset”,
“evaluates ... to select” maps to “is determined based on”,
“processing latency” maps to “a processing time for decoding the first set” from the list of “at least based on a processing time for deciding the first set ... or a latency target ... or channel quality parameters of a link”, and
“quality of service (QoS) for the link” maps to “channel quality parameters of a link” from the list of “at least based on a processing time for deciding the first set ... or a latency target ... or channel quality parameters of a link”).
A first component is configured to provide a backhaul connection to the parent node of the network
(“The base station 104 [in Fig. 1] is connected to a core network 110 through a backhaul 112 in accordance with known techniques” (Kalhan, 0017).
Here, “receiver 130” in Fig. 1 maps to “a first component”,
“connected ... through a backhaul” maps to “configured to provide a backhaul connection”, and
a node in the “core network 110” maps to “the parent node of the network”).
A second component is configured to provide a backhaul connection to at least one of the child node or an access link to the user equipment
(“[A] scheduler 108 assigns communication resources for serving the UE device 106” (Kalhan, 0017).
Here, “transmitter 128” maps to “a second component”,
“serving” maps to “is configured to provide a backhaul connection”, and
“the UE device” fulfills the broadest reasonable interpretation of both “the child node” and “an access link to the user equipment”).
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
A plurality of code blocks of a transport block arranged in a first time domain resource allocation
The first subset of code blocks of the transport block
However, Guan does teach:
A plurality of code blocks of a transport block arranged in a first time domain resource allocation
(“[O]ne TB In 5G is divided into more CBs (code block) ... [T]he method further includes ... sending ... first scheduling information used to schedule the first transport block” (0007, 0023-0024).
Here, “more CBs” map to “a plurality of code blocks”,
“one TB” maps to “a transport block”, and
“scheduling information” maps to “a first time domain resource allocation”).
The first subset of code blocks of the transport block
(“[T]he division manner may be a division manner based on logical sequence numbers of the CBs. For example, a CB 1 to a CB 12 form a CBG 1, a CB 13 to a CB 24 form a CBG 2, a CB 25 to a CB 36 form a CBG 3, and a CB 37 to a CB 48 form a CBG 4” (Guan, 0139).
Here, “CBG 1” maps to “the first subset of code blocks of the transport block”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to structure the flow of forwarded data described in Kalhan using transport blocks and code blocks, as taught in Guan. Transport blocks and code blocks are a basic format for cellular data, so it would be obvious to subdivide data into them.
As to Claim 19:
Kalhan teaches:
Amplifying at least a ... subset
(“[T]he incoming signal is amplified and retransmitted as the forwarded signal” (Kalhan, 0020).
Here, “amplified” maps to “amplifying”, and
“the incoming signal” maps to “at least a ... subset”).
Transmitting at least the amplified ... subset
(“[T]he incoming signal is amplified and retransmitted as the forwarded signal” (Kalhan, 0020).
Here, “retransmitted” maps to “transmitting”, and
“the incoming signal” which is “amplified” maps to “at least the amplified ... subset”).
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
At least a second subset of code blocks
Transmitting at least the ... second subset of code blocks of the transport block at the second time domain resource allocation prior to the first subset of code blocks
However, Guan does teach:
At least a second subset of code blocks
(“[T]he division manner may be a division manner based on logical sequence numbers of the CBs. For example, a CB 1 to a CB 12 form a CBG 1, a CB 13 to a CB 24 form a CBG 2, a CB 25 to a CB 36 form a CBG 3, and a CB 37 to a CB 48 form a CBG 4” (Guan, 0139).
Here, “CBG 2” maps to “at least a second subset of code blocks”).
Transmitting at least the ... second subset of code blocks of the transport block at the second time domain resource allocation prior to the first subset of code blocks
(“Because a resource mapping rule of the CBs is frequency-first time-second mapping, different elements may be decoded sequentially according to a buffering time sequence without waiting until all CBs are buffered for joint processing. Then, for a CB corresponding to an element that is mapped and sent first, the terminal device may decode the CB first” (Guan, 0219).
Here, “an element that is mapped and sent first” maps to ‘transmit at least the ... second subset of code blocks of the transport block ... prior to the first subset of code blocks” because this shows the code blocks can be sent out-of-order, and
a second “resource mapping” for “time” maps to “the second time domain resource allocation”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Guan’s method for sending certain segments of a transport block early to Kalhan’s method for switching between amplified forwarding and decoded forwarding because AF is much faster than DF and will therefore have data ready to transmit much sooner.
As to Claim 20:
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
Indicating an order of at least the first and the second subset of code blocks of the transport block at the second time domain resource allocation and the number of code blocks within the first and the second subset of code blocks to the child node of the user equipment
However, Guan does teach:
Indicating an order of at least the first and the second subset of code blocks of the transport block at the second time domain resource allocation and the number of code blocks within the first and the second subset of code blocks to the child node of the user equipment
(“[T]he second indication information is used to indicate an identifier, a location, or a sequence number of the retransmitted code block in the first transport block ... The radio access network device may notify the terminal device of a current specific division manner by using RRC signaling” (Guan, 0163, 0192).
Here, “indicate” maps to “indicating ... to the child node of the user equipment”,
“a sequence number” maps to “an order”,
“the retransmitted code block” maps to “at least the first and the second subset of code blocks of the transport block at the second time domain resource allocation” because this “retransmitted code block” is a generic example which describes each retransmitted code block in a sequence, and
“sequence number” maps to “the number of code blocks within the first and the second subset of code blocks” because the last (i.e. the largest) sequence number will communicate the total number of blocks in a given subset).
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 Guan’s practice of indicating an order of transmitted code blocks into Kalhan’s method for forwarding signals. Indicating the order of code blocks can help the receiving device reassemble them after receiving the code blocks out of order.
As to Claim 21:
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
Dividing the plurality of code blocks of the transport block arranged in the first time domain resource allocation into a plurality of subsets of code blocks
Decoding each of the subsets of code blocks
Arranging the subsets of code blocks at the second time domain resource allocation in the same temporal order as received in the first time domain resource allocation
However, Guan does teach:
Dividing the plurality of code blocks of the transport block arranged in the first time domain resource allocation into a plurality of subsets of code blocks
(“[T]he division manner may be a division manner based on logical sequence numbers of the CBs. For example, a CB 1 to a CB 12 form a CBG 1, a CB 13 to a CB 24 form a CBG 2, a CB 25 to a CB 36 form a CBG 3, and a CB 37 to a CB 48 form a CBG 4” (Guan, 0139).
Here, “division” maps to “dividing ... into a plurality of subsets”,
“CB1 to a CB 12” maps to “the plurality of code blocks of the transport block ... into a plurality of subsets of codeblocks”, and
“CBG 1” maps to “code blocks ... in the first time domain resource allocation” because a code block group is a set of code blocks scheduled to be sent together).
Decoding each of the subsets of code blocks
(“For a CB corresponding to an element that is mapped and sent later, the terminal device may decode the CB later” (Kalhan, 0219).
Here, “decode the CB” maps to “decoding each of the subsets of code blocks”).
Arranging the subsets of code blocks at the second time domain resource allocation in the same temporal order as received in the first time domain resource allocation
(“During retransmission of the retransmitted code block, based on the foregoing selected division manner, the 2-bit field in the first field during initial transmission may be reused as the two indication bits in the second field, to further indicate which code block is the current retransmitted code block in this division manner” (Guan, 0197).
Here, “indicate which code block is” maps to “arranging the subsets of code blocks ... in the same temporal order”,
“initial transmission” maps to “code blocks at the second time domain resource allocation”, and
“retransmitted code block” maps to “code blocks ... received in the first time domain resource allocation”).
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 Guan’s method of reordering code blocks that were transmitted out of order into Kalhan’s method for forwarding packets. Reordering the code blocks is a necessary aspect of sending any ordered transmission in out-of-order chunks.
As to Claim 22:
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
Each subset of code blocks comprises only one code block
However, Guan does teach:
Each subset of code blocks comprises only one code block
(“[T]he division manner may be a division manner based on logical sequence numbers of the CBs. For example, a CB 1 to a CB 12 form a CBG 1, a CB 13 to a CB 24 form a CBG 2, a CB 25 to a CB 36 form a CBG 3, and a CB 37 to a CB 48 form a CBG 4” (Guan, 0139).
Here, “a CB 1” maps to “each subset of code blocks comprises only one code block”).
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 Guan’s practice of subdividing transmissions into code blocks into Kalhan’s method for forwarding packets. Code blocks are a common format for segmenting packets that would be useful to forward.
As to Claim 23:
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
Performing error check for each code block after decoding
However, Guan does teach:
Performing error check for each code block after decoding
(“[A]fter UE decodes each CB, it may be determined, through the CRC check, whether a current CB is correctly decoded” (Guan, 0112).
Here, “the CRC check” maps to “performing error check”, and
“each CB” maps to “each code block”, and
“after UE decodes” maps to “after decoding”).
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 Guan’s method of error checking decoded code blocks into Kalhan’s method for forwarding packets. Error checking is a basic fault tolerance technique that can make the relayed communications more reliable.
As to Claim 29:
Kalhan teaches:
Receiving, from the parent node, control information relating at least to ... parameters enabling to perform amplifying and/or decoding
(“[A] signal forwarding scheme is based on the parameters, techniques, and/or level of processing applied to the incoming signal to generate the forwarded signal.... At step 606 [in Fig. 6], a signal forwarding scheme instruction 144 is received from the base station 104” (Kalhan, 0020, 0054).
Here, “received” maps to “receiving”,
“the base station 104” maps to “the parent node”,
“forwarding scheme instruction 144” maps to “control information related at least to ... amplifying and/or decoding”, and
“parameters ... to generate the forwarded signal” map to “parameters enabling to perform amplifying and/or decoding”).
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
Control information relating at least to size of the transport block
The code blocks
However, Guan teaches:
Control information relating at least to size of the transport block
(“[T]he MCS indexes 0 to 28 and a time-frequency resource allocation field in control information are jointly used to determine a payload size of a transport block or a code block” (Guan, 0199).
Here, “control information” maps to “control information”,
“used to determine” maps to “relating at least to”, and
“a payload size ... of a transport block” maps to “the transport block”).
The code blocks
(“[O]ne TB in 5G is divided into more CBs (code block)” (Guan, 0007).
Here, “CBs (code block)” maps to “the code blocks”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Guan’s practice of indicating the size of a transport block into Kalhan’s method for forwarding packets. Control information is commonly used to configure transport blocks and would be an obvious part of sending data in that format.
Claim(s) 7-11, 14, 24-28, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalhan (US 2019/0081696 A1) in view of Guan (US 2019/0334664 A1) and further in view of Lei et al. (US 2023/0071243 A1, hereinafter “Lei”).
As to Claim 7:
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
An error in at least one code block
Transmission of ... code blocks
However, Guan does teach:
An error in at least one code block
(“[A] receiving error easily occurs in a punctured CB” (Guan, 0114).
Here, “error” maps to “an error”, and
“CB” maps to “at least one code block”).
Transmission of ... code blocks
(“[A]ll CBs in the TB are retransmitted” (Guan, 0114).
Here, “retransmitted” maps to “transmission”, and
“CBs” map to “code blocks”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to structure the flow of forwarded data described in Kalhan using transport blocks and code blocks, as taught in Guan. Transport blocks and code blocks are a basic format for cellular data, so it would be obvious to subdivide data into them.
The combination of Kalhan and Guan does not explicitly disclose:
In response to detecting an error in at least one code block, to cancel the transmission of remaining code blocks to the child node or the user equipment
However, Lei does describe a method for transmitting a stream of packets.
Specifically, Lei teaches:
In response to detecting an error ... to cancel the transmission ... remaining ... to the child node or the user equipment
(“[T]he gNB stops transmitting the data sub-packets after detecting an error in the transmission of the data sub-packets” (Lei, 0057).
Here, “after detecting an error” maps to “in response to detecting an error”, and
“stops transmitting” maps to “cancel the transmission ... remaining ... to the child node or the user equipment”).
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 Lei’s practice of halting transmission when an error is detected into Kalhan’s method for forwarding packets. If a transmission contains an error, it would be obvious to freeze the transmission because its contents are no longer trustworthy.
As to Claim 8:
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
Request a re-transmission of the transport block or a subset of code blocks containing an error in at least one code block from the parent node
However, Guan does teach:
Request a re-transmission of the transport block or a subset of code blocks containing an error in at least one code block from the parent node
(“S304 [in Fig. 3]. The radio access network device receives the first feedback information sent by the terminal device.... S305. The radio access network device sends a retransmitted code block and retransmission indication information to the terminal device, wherein the retransmitted code block includes some or all of code blocks included in a code block set corresponding to negative acknowledgement information in the first feedback information” (Guan, 0143, 0146).
Here, “negative acknowledgement” maps to “request a re-transmission”,
“some or all of code blocks included in a code block set” maps to “a subset of code blocks” from the list of “the transport block or a subset of code blocks”,
the “negative acknowledgement” indicates that the code blocks are “containing an error in at least one code block”, and
“the radio access network device” maps to “the parent node”).
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 Guan’s method of retransmitting erroneous code blocks into Kalhan’s method for relaying packets. Resending packets that were garbled during transmission prevents the loss of the corresponding information.
As to Claim 9:
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
In response to detecting an error in at least one code block after sending control information about the subsets of code block to the child node or the user equipment, to transmit all remaining code blocks to the child node or the user equipment
However, Guan does teach:
In response to detecting an error in at least one code block after sending control information about the subsets of code block to the child node or the user equipment, to transmit all remaining code blocks to the child node or the user equipment
(“Optionally, the terminal device receives the first transport block based on the first scheduling information.... S304 [in Fig. 3]. The radio access network device receives the first feedback information sent by the terminal device.... S305. The radio access network device sends a retransmitted code block and retransmission indication information to the terminal device, wherein the retransmitted code block includes some or all of code blocks included in a code block set corresponding to negative acknowledgement information in the first feedback information” (Guan, 0138, 0143, 0146).
Here, the causal relationship between S304 and S305 in Fig. 3 maps to “in response”,
“negative acknowledgement” maps to “detecting an error in at least one code block”,
“the first scheduling information” maps to “sending control information about the subsets of code blocks”,
“the terminal device” maps to “the child node or the user equipment” because a terminal device fits the description of both these options, and
“retransmitted code block” maps to “transmit all remaining code blocks” because the erroneous code blocks are “remaining” in the sense that they have not been correctly sent).
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 Guan’s method for retransmitting remaining code blocks after an error occurs into Kalhan’s method for forwarding packets. Resolving outstanding issues in transmission ensures that the intended data is sent correctly.
As to Claim 10:
Kalhan teaches:
Request a re-transmission
(“[T]he signal forwarding device forwards a scheduling request received from the UE device to the base station” (Kalhan, 0032).
Here, “scheduling request” to the “forwarding device” maps to “request a re-transmission”
Re-transmit ... after correctly receiving .... from the parent node
(“[T]he repeater simply retransmits downlink signals received from another base station to the UE device” (Kalhan, 0003).
Here, “retransmits” maps to “re-transmit”,
“received” maps to “after correctly receiving”, and
“base station” maps to “the parent node”).
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
The code block containing an error;
Indicate the error to the child node or the user equipment; and
Re-transmitting at least the code block previously containing an error
Code block
However, Guan does teach:
The code block containing an error
(“[A] receiving error easily occurs in a punctured CB” (Guan, 0114).
Here, “CB” maps to “the code block”,
“in” maps to “containing”, and
“a receiving error” maps to “an error”).
Indicate the error to the child node or the user equipment; and
(“During retransmission of the retransmitted code block, based on the foregoing selected division manner, the 2-bit field in the first field during initial transmission may be reused as the two indication bits in the second field, to further indicate which code block is the current retransmitted code block in this division manner” (Guan, 0197).
Here, “further indicate” maps to “indicate ... to the child node or the user equipment”, and
“which code block is the current retransmitted code block” maps to “the error”).
Re-transmit at least the code block previously containing an error
(“S304 [in Fig. 3]. The radio access network device receives the first feedback information sent by the terminal device.... S305. The radio access network device sends a retransmitted code block and retransmission indication information to the terminal device, wherein the retransmitted code block includes some or all of code blocks included in a code block set corresponding to negative acknowledgement information in the first feedback information” (Guan, 0143, 0146).
Here, “sends a retransmitted code block” maps to “re-transmit at least the code block”, and
“code blocks ... corresponding to negative acknowledgement” maps to “the code block previously containing an error”).
Code block
(“[T]he first transport block includes at least two code blocks” (Guan, 0011).
Here, one of the “two code blocks” maps to “code block”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kalhan’s method for having a relay device forward packets between a parent node and a child node to the error-correction retransmission described in Guan. Guan already describes a HARQ requests for packet retransmission, so it would be natural and obvious for a relay node to serve as an intermediary for both the request and the base station’s response.
As to Claim 11:
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
An error in at least one code block after sending control information about the subsets of code block to the child node or the user equipment
Code blocks of the second transport block
However, Guan does teach:
An error in at least one code block after sending control information about the subsets of code block to the child node or the user equipment
(“S302.... [T]he terminal device receives the first transport block based on the first scheduling information.... S304.... [T]he radio access network device may retransmit only a code block set that is not correctly received” (Guan, 0137-0138, 0144).
Here, “a code block set that is not correctly received” maps to “an error in at least one code block”,
the sequence of events that places S304 after S302 in Fig. 3 maps to “after”,
“the first scheduling information” maps to “sending control information”,
“the transport block” maps to “the subsets of code block”, and
“the terminal device” maps to “the child node or the user equipment”).
Code blocks of the second transport block
(“S302.... [T]he terminal device receives the first transport block based on the first scheduling information.... S304.... [T]he radio access network device may retransmit only a code block set that is not correctly received” (Guan, 0137-0138, 0144).
Here, “the first transport block” maps to “code blocks of the second transport block”).
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 Guan’s method of error checking decoded code blocks into Kalhan’s method for forwarding packets. Error checking is a basic fault tolerance technique that can make the relayed communications more reliable.
The combination of Kalhan and Guan also does not explicitly disclose:
In response to detecting an error ... to cease to transmit any subsequent [data] ... to the child node or the user equipment
However, Lei does teach:
In response to detecting an error ... to cease to transmit any subsequent [data] ... to the child node or the user equipment
(“[T]he gNB stops transmitting the data sub-packets after detecting an error in the transmission of the data sub-packets” (Lei, 0057).
Here, “after detecting an error” maps to “in response to detecting an error”, and
“stops transmitting” maps to “to cease to transmit any subsequent [data] ... to the child node or the user equipment”).
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 Lei’s practice of halting transmission when an error is detected into Kalhan’s method for forwarding packets. If a transmission contains an error, it would be obvious to freeze the transmission because its contents are no longer trustworthy.
As to Claim 14:
The combination of Kalhan and Guan does not explicitly disclose:
Adjust the number of code blocks to be included in the first subset of code blocks according to the processing capability of the apparatus
However, Lei does teach:
Adjust the number of code blocks to be included in the first subset of code blocks according to the processing capability of the apparatus
(“The method further includes, in response to detecting that the transmission of the data sub-packets does not meet the delay requirement, stopping transmitting remaining data sub-packets obtained by splitting the data packet of the interactive service to the subsequent node” (Lei, 0005).
Here, “stopping transmitting remaining data sub-packets” maps to “adjust the number of code blocks to be included in the first subset of code blocks”, and
“the transmission ... does not meet the delay requirement” maps to “according to the processing capability of the apparatus”).
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 Lei’s practice of truncating a transmission because a device can’t process it fast enough with Kalhan’s method for forwarding packets. Aborting any remaining transmissions after a fixed amount of time ensures that latency requirements are met.
As to Claim 24:
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
An error in at least one code block
Transmission of ... code blocks
However, Guan does teach:
An error in at least one code block
(“[A] receiving error easily occurs in a punctured CB” (Guan, 0114).
Here, “error” maps to “an error”, and
“CB” maps to “at least one code block”).
Transmission of ... code blocks
(“[A]ll CBs in the TB are retransmitted” (Guan, 0114).
Here, “retransmitted” maps to “transmission”, and
“CBs” map to “code blocks”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to structure the flow of forwarded data described in Kalhan using transport blocks and code blocks, as taught in Guan. Transport blocks and code blocks are a basic format for cellular data, so it would be obvious to subdivide data into them.
The combination of Kalhan and Guan does not explicitly disclose:
Cancelling, in response to detecting an error ... the transmission ... remaining ... to the child node or the user equipment
However, Lei does teach:
Cancelling, in response to detecting an error ... the transmission ... remaining ... to the child node or the user equipment
(“[T]he gNB stops transmitting the data sub-packets after detecting an error in the transmission of the data sub-packets” (Lei, 0057).
Here, “stops transmitting” maps to “cancelling ... the transmission ... remaining ... to the child node or the user equipment”, and
“after detecting an error” maps to “in response to detecting an error”).
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 Lei’s practice of halting transmission when an error is detected into Kalhan’s method for forwarding packets. If a transmission contains an error, it would be obvious to freeze the transmission because its contents are no longer trustworthy.
As to Claim 25:
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
Requesting a re-transmission of the transport block or a subset of code blocks containing an error in at least one code block from the parent node
However, Guan does teach:
Requesting a re-transmission of the transport block or a subset of code blocks containing an error in at least one code block from the parent node
(“S304 [in Fig. 3]. The radio access network device receives the first feedback information sent by the terminal device.... S305. The radio access network device sends a retransmitted code block and retransmission indication information to the terminal device, wherein the retransmitted code block includes some or all of code blocks included in a code block set corresponding to negative acknowledgement information in the first feedback information” (Guan, 0143, 0146).
Here, “negative acknowledgement” maps to “requesting a re-transmission”,
“some or all of code blocks included in a code block set” maps to “a subset of code blocks” from the list of “the transport block or a subset of code blocks”,
the “negative acknowledgement” indicates that the code blocks are “containing an error in at least one code block”, and
“the radio access network device” maps to “the parent node”).
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 Guan’s method of retransmitting erroneous code blocks into Kalhan’s method for relaying packets. Resending packets that were garbled during transmission prevents the loss of the corresponding information.
As to Claim 26:
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
Transmitting, in response to detecting an error in at least one code block after sending control information about the subsets of code block to the child node or the user equipment, all remaining code blocks to the child node or the user equipment
However, Guan does teach:
Transmitting, in response to detecting an error in at least one code block after sending control information about the subsets of code block to the child node or the user equipment, all remaining code blocks to the child node or the user equipment
(“Optionally, the terminal device receives the first transport block based on the first scheduling information.... S304 [in Fig. 3]. The radio access network device receives the first feedback information sent by the terminal device.... S305. The radio access network device sends a retransmitted code block and retransmission indication information to the terminal device, wherein the retransmitted code block includes some or all of code blocks included in a code block set corresponding to negative acknowledgement information in the first feedback information” (Guan, 0138, 0143, 0146).
Here, “retransmitted code block” maps to “transmitting ... all remaining code blocks” because the erroneous code blocks are “remaining” in the sense that they have not been correctly sent,
the causal relationship between S304 and S305 in Fig. 3 maps to “in response”,
“negative acknowledgement” maps to “detecting an error in at least one code block”,
“the first scheduling information” maps to “sending control information about the subsets of code blocks”, and
“the terminal device” maps to “the child node or the user equipment” because a terminal device fits the description of both these options).
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 Guan’s method for retransmitting remaining code blocks after an error occurs into Kalhan’s method for forwarding packets. Resolving outstanding issues in transmission ensures that the intended data is sent correctly.
As to Claim 27:
Kalhan teaches:
Requesting a re-transmission
(“[T]he signal forwarding device forwards a scheduling request received from the UE device to the base station” (Kalhan, 0032).
Here, “scheduling request” to the “forwarding device” maps to “requesting a re-transmission”
Re-transmitting ... after correctly receiving .... from the parent node
(“[T]he repeater simply retransmits downlink signals received from another base station to the UE device” (Kalhan, 0003).
Here, “retransmits” maps to “re-transmitting”,
“received” maps to “after correctly receiving”, and
“base station” maps to “the parent node”).
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
The code block containing an error;
Indicating the error to the child node or the user equipment; and
Re-transmitting at least the code block previously containing an error
Code block
However, Guan does teach:
The code block containing an error
(“[A] receiving error easily occurs in a punctured CB” (Guan, 0114).
Here, “CB” maps to “the code block”,
“in” maps to “containing”, and
“a receiving error” maps to “an error”).
Indicating the error to the child node or the user equipment; and
(“During retransmission of the retransmitted code block, based on the foregoing selected division manner, the 2-bit field in the first field during initial transmission may be reused as the two indication bits in the second field, to further indicate which code block is the current retransmitted code block in this division manner” (Guan, 0197).
Here, “further indicate” maps to “indicating ... to the child node or the user equipment”, and
“which code block is the current retransmitted code block” maps to “the error”).
Re-transmitting at least the code block previously containing an error
(“S304 [in Fig. 3]. The radio access network device receives the first feedback information sent by the terminal device.... S305. The radio access network device sends a retransmitted code block and retransmission indication information to the terminal device, wherein the retransmitted code block includes some or all of code blocks included in a code block set corresponding to negative acknowledgement information in the first feedback information” (Guan, 0143, 0146).
Here, “sends a retransmitted code block” maps to “re-transmitting at least the code block”, and
“code blocks ... corresponding to negative acknowledgement” maps to “the code block previously containing an error”).
Code block
(“[T]he first transport block includes at least two code blocks” (Guan, 0011).
Here, one of the “two code blocks” maps to “code block”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kalhan’s method for having a relay device forward packets between a parent node and a child node to the error-correction retransmission described in Guan. Guan already describes a HARQ requests for packet retransmission, so it would be natural and obvious for a relay node to serve as an intermediary for both the request and the base station’s response.
As to Claim 28:
Kalhan does not explicitly disclose:
An error in at least one code block after sending control information about the subsets of code block to the child node or the user equipment
Code blocks of the second transport block
However, Guan does teach:
An error in at least one code block after sending control information about the subsets of code block to the child node or the user equipment
(“S302.... [T]he terminal device receives the first transport block based on the first scheduling information.... S304.... [T]he radio access network device may retransmit only a code block set that is not correctly received” (Guan, 0137-0138, 0144).
Here, “a code block set that is not correctly received” maps to “an error in at least one code block”,
the sequence of events that places S304 after S302 in Fig. 3 maps to “after”,
“the first scheduling information” maps to “sending control information”,
“the transport block” maps to “the subsets of code block”, and
“the terminal device” maps to “the child node or the user equipment”).
Code blocks of the second transport block
(“S302.... [T]he terminal device receives the first transport block based on the first scheduling information.... S304.... [T]he radio access network device may retransmit only a code block set that is not correctly received” (Guan, 0137-0138, 0144).
Here, “the first transport block” maps to “code blocks of the second transport block”).
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 Guan’s method of error checking decoded code blocks into Kalhan’s method for forwarding packets. Error checking is a basic fault tolerance technique that can make the relayed communications more reliable.
The combination of Kalhan and Guan also does not explicitly disclose:
Ceasing, in response to detecting an error ... to transmit any subsequent [data] ... to the child node or the user equipment
However, Lei does teach:
Ceasing, in response to detecting an error ... to transmit any subsequent [data] ... to the child node or the user equipment
(“[T]he gNB stops transmitting the data sub-packets after detecting an error in the transmission of the data sub-packets” (Lei, 0057).
Here, “stops transmitting” maps to “ceasing ... to transmit any subsequent [data] ... to the child node or the user equipment”, and
“after detecting an error” maps to “in response to detecting an error”).
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 Lei’s practice of halting transmission when an error is detected into Kalhan’s method for forwarding packets. If a transmission contains an error, it would be obvious to freeze the transmission because its contents are no longer trustworthy.
As to Claim 31:
The combination of Kalhan and Guan does not explicitly disclose:
Adjusting the number of code blocks to be included in the first subset of code blocks according to the processing capability of the apparatus
However, Lei does teach:
Adjusting the number of code blocks to be included in the first subset of code blocks according to the processing capability of the apparatus
(“The method further includes, in response to detecting that the transmission of the data sub-packets does not meet the delay requirement, stopping transmitting remaining data sub-packets obtained by splitting the data packet of the interactive service to the subsequent node” (Lei, 0005).
Here, “stopping transmitting remaining data sub-packets” maps to “adjusting the number of code blocks to be included in the first subset of code blocks”, and
“the transmission ... does not meet the delay requirement” maps to “according to the processing capability of the apparatus”).
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 Lei’s practice of truncating a transmission because a device can’t process it fast enough with Kalhan’s method for forwarding packets. Aborting any remaining transmissions after a fixed amount of time ensures that latency requirements are met.
Claim(s) 13 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalhan (US 2019/0081696 A1) in view of Guan (US 2019/0334664 A1) and further in view of Zhu et al. (US 2022/0278774 A1, hereinafter “Zhu”).
As to Claim 13:
Kalhan teaches:
Send ... to the child node or the user equipment ... as received
(Fig. 1 in Kalhan shows an example relay node receiving and transmitting various signals.
Here, the “forwarded DL” signal, element 120 in Fig. 1, maps to “send ... to the child node or the user equipment”, and
“incoming DL” signal 114 maps to the “received” signal).
Received from the parent node
(Fig. 1 in Kalhan shows an example relay node receiving and transmitting various signals.
Here, “incoming DL” signal 114 in Kalhan maps to “received from the parent node”).
The combination of Kalhan and Guan does not explicitly disclose:
Send the transport block ... having the same size and comprising the same parameters
However, Zhu does describe a method for retransmitting transport blocks.
Specifically, Zhu teaches:
Send the transport block ... having the same size and comprising the same parameters
(“[A] TB carrying a retransmission CBG includes the same number of CBGs as a TB carrying an initial transmission CBG ... The retransmission CBG included in one of the TBs and an initial transmission CBG corresponding to the retransmission CBG, are the same in their modulation and coding scheme (MCS) and/or code rate” (Zhu, 0050, 0051).
Here, “the retransmission ... TB” maps to “send the transport block”,
“the same number of CBGs” maps to “having the same size”, and
“the same in their modulation and coding scheme (MCS)” maps to “comprising the same parameters”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fiiling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zhu’s practice of maintaining the size and parameters of a retransmitted packet into Kalhan’s method for relaying packets. Maintaining the same size and parameters of an original transmission ensures that the transmitted data successfully reaches its destination.
As to Claim 30:
Kalhan teaches:
Sending ... to the child node or the user equipment ... as received
(Fig. 1 in Kalhan shows an example relay node receiving and transmitting various signals.
Here, the “forwarded DL” signal, element 120 in Fig. 1, maps to “sending ... to the child node or the user equipment”, and
“incoming DL” signal 114 maps to the “received” signal).
Received from the parent node
(Fig. 1 in Kalhan shows an example relay node receiving and transmitting various signals.
Here, “incoming DL” signal 114 in Kalhan maps to “received from the parent node”).
The combination of Kalhan and Guan does not explicitly disclose:
Sending the transport block ... having the same size and comprising the same parameters
However, Zhu does teach:
Sending the transport block ... having the same size and comprising the same parameters
(“[A] TB carrying a retransmission CBG includes the same number of CBGs as a TB carrying an initial transmission CBG ... The retransmission CBG included in one of the TBs and an initial transmission CBG corresponding to the retransmission CBG, are the same in their modulation and coding scheme (MCS) and/or code rate” (Zhu, 0050, 0051).
Here, “the retransmission ... TB” maps to “sending the transport block”,
“the same number of CBGs” maps to “having the same size”, and
“the same in their modulation and coding scheme (MCS)” maps to “comprising the same parameters”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fiiling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zhu’s practice of maintaining the size and parameters of a retransmitted packet into Kalhan’s method for relaying packets. Maintaining the same size and parameters of an original transmission ensures that the transmitted data successfully reaches its destination.
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