DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 13, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDSs have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is invited to point out any particular reference(s) in the IDS that they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this Office Action. It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff ’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 43, 49, 50, and 56-57 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 43 and 56 recite the limitation "a first positioned SLC PDU within the SLC SDU" in line 4. The phrase “first positioned SLC PDU” is indefinite. It is unclear whether “positioned” refers to a temporal arrival order, a physical location within in a memory buffer, or a logical sequence number within the SLC SDU. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined without a clear definition of how a SLC PDU is “positioned.”
Claim 49 recites the limitation "a moment of receiving the current SLC PDU" in lines 2-3. The tern “a moment of receiving” is vague. It is unclear if this “moment” refers to the Start of Frame, the end of the frame, or a specific timestamp generated by a processor. In high-speed satellite communications, the specific reference point for a “moment” is critical for calculation time lengths.
Claim 50 recites the limitation "a second time length" and “a third time length”. The relationship between the "a second time length" and “a third time length” is unclear. The claim recites a time point based on these time lengths, but does not provide sufficient logical structure to understand how these variables interact to calculate a specific “time point.” Claim 50 further recites the limitation "a receiving moment of a first SLC PDU". The tern “a receiving moment” is vague. It is unclear if this “moment” refers to the Start of Frame, the end of the frame, or a specific timestamp generated by a processor.
Claim 57 recites the limitation " a first user frame directed to a first terminal," but subsequently refers to “ID information of the first terminal”. While “ a first terminal” provide the initial basis, the logic of the claim suggests that the “chip” might be part of this first terminal. However, the relationship between the chip and the first terminal is not explicitly defined. It is unclear if the chip is within the first terminal or if the first terminal is an external device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 38, 51, and 57 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedwell (U.S. Patent No. 6,522,635, hereinafter “Bedwell”) in view of Yeo et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090232161, hereinafter “Yeo”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Bedwell unless otherwise mentioned.
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding Claim 38, Bedwell teaches A method in a satellite communication system (Col. 1, lines 13-14: The present invention relates generally to an improved communication protocol for satellite messaging, and more particularly, to improvements to data protocols, such as the Standard-C communication protocol, for sending and receiving data messages using a satellite) and comprising:
receiving, from a satellite network device, a physical frame comprising a first user frame directed to a first terminal and a second user frame directed to a second terminal (Col. 8, lines 25-33: To accomplish the above, it has been determined that the improved communication protocol is based on maximizing the number of messages that are being concurrently transmitted via the satellite or broadcast station. It has been further determined that an efficient and practical to accomplish this objective is to divide messages of various sizes into smaller packets and transmit packets of different messages substantially concurrently, thereby maximizing the number of messages that are being transmitted.) (Col. 32, lines 2-7: Thus, the improved protocol further contains multiple announcements in one frame for each message that is being broadcast. In the above example, there will be four announcements broadcast when there are four messages going simultaneously (The four announcements for the four messages are interpreted as “a first user frame directed to a first terminal and a second user frame directed to a second terminal”, and the ‘in one frame’ is interpreted as “a physical frame comprising”). All mobiles (the ‘all mobiles’ is interpreted as “a first terminal … a second terminal”) receive the announcement frame of the message (interpreted as “receiving, from a satellite network device, a physical frame comprising …”)), wherein the first user frame comprises frame header information, wherein the frame header information comprises a first user identifier (ID) field and (Col. 32, lines 6-8: All mobiles receive the announcement frame of the message and determine if the identifier contained therein is their own);
parsing out the first user frame from the physical frame (Col. 32, lines 6-8: All mobiles receive the announcement frame of the message and determine if the identifier contained therein is their own (interpreted as “parsing out the first user frame from the physical frame,”)); and
discarding the second user frame (Col. 32, lines 8-10: All mobiles receive the announcement frame of the message and determine … If the identifier in the announcement does not contain the mobiles identifier, then the mobile disregards the message.).
Bedwell does not explicitly teach the “wherein the frame header information comprises … a first frame type field,”.
Yeo, in analogous art, discloses the “wherein the frame header information comprises … a first frame type field,”. Yeo is directed to a hierarchical header format and a data transmission method in a communication system (see para [0001] of Yeo).
Yeo discloses the “wherein the frame header information comprises … a first frame type field,” (para [0039] of Yeo: As shown in FIG. 3, the TB (‘transport block’) 300 that is transmitted from the MAC layer 120 to the physical layer 130 includes a MAC header field and a payload field, and the payload field includes at least one RLC PDU 320. Here, each RLC PDU 320 is an RLC control PDU or an RLC data PDU.)(para [0045] of Yeo: FIG. 6 shows an RLC information field (interpreted as “the frame header information”) of an RLC PDU of a TB according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention.) (Fig. 9 and paragraphs [0060-0062] of Yeo: FIG. 9 shows a configuration of an RLC control PDU according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 9, the RLC control PDU 320 includes an RLC information field 327 and a message field 329. The RLC information field 327 includes a type field 327 a (interpreted as “a first frame type field”) and a message identifier field 327 b, and may further include a link identifier field 327 c.).
Examiner’s note: The RLC PDU are the direct payload of the Physical Layer. As shown in Figs. 1-6 and discussed in paragraphs [0039-0042] of Yeo, the TB (Transport Block) generated at RLC/MAC layer is passed to the Physical Layer (Physical Layer 130 in Fig. 1 of Yeo). This TB is then subjected to form the Physical frame. Therefore, the RLC information field and message field generated at the RLC/MAC layer are inherently embedded and transmitted within the physical frame.
Bedwell and Yeo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a data transmission method in a communication system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bedwell to incorporate the teachings of Yeo and provide a frame type field indicating the frame type in header information of the protocol data unit.
Regarding claim 51, it is a terminal claim corresponding to the method claim 38, except limitations “terminal” (the mobile terminal, see Col. 32, lines 11-17) and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 38.
Regarding claim 57, it is a chip claim corresponding to the method claim 38, except limitations “Chip” (the mobile terminal, see Col. 32, lines 11-17) and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 38.
Claim(s) 39-41 and 52-54 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedwell, in view of Yeo, in view of 3GPP TR 38.821 V16.0.0 (2019-12) “Solutions for NR to support non-terrestrial networks (NTN)”, and further in view of Kubota et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160219458, hereinafter “Kubota”).
Regarding Claim 39, Bedwell and Yeo teach The method of claim 38, wherein and wherein the frame header information further comprises:
a total frame quantity field indicating a quantity of SLC PDUs from the satellite network device to the first terminal (para [0035] of Yeo: the ARQ controller 113 fragmentizes and concatenates the SDU depending on the data transmission amount determined by a scheduler according to the data transmission method, and generates a fragmentation block (FB) (S130).)(para [0036] of Yeo: The ARQ controller 113 generates a PDU including the generated FB and information on the FB (S140), and adds radio link control information including a PDU retransmission method and the number of fragmentation blocks included in the PDU to the generated PDU to thus generate an RLC data PDU.) (para [0037] of Yeo: The ARQ controller 113 transmits the generated RLC data PDU to the MAC layer (S150).) (Fig. 3 and para [0039] of Yeo: As shown in FIG. 3, the TB 300 that is transmitted from the MAC layer 120 to the physical layer 130 includes a MAC header field and a payload field, and the payload field includes at least one RLC PDU 320. Here, each RLC PDU 320 is an RLC control PDU or an RLC data PDU.) (para [0045] of Yeo: FIG. 6 shows an RLC information field (interpreted as “the frame header information”) of an RLC PDU of a TB according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention.) (Fig. 6 and para [0046] of Yeo: As shown in FIG. 6, the RLC information field 321 includes a type field 321 a, a link identifier field 321 b, and a sequence number field 321 c, and further includes a piggybagging indicator field 321 d, an end of buffer (EOB) indicator field 321 e, and an FB number field 321 f (interpreted as “a total frame quantity field”).) (para [0052] of Yeo: The FB number field 321 f indicates the entire number of FBs included in the RLC PDU 320 when the number of FBs included in the RLC PDU 320 is plural (interpreted as “a total frame quantity field indicating a quantity of SLC PDUs … ”)...) (Examiner’s note: Yeo discloses that, the ARQ controller 113 fragmentizes and concatenates the SDU depending on the data transmission amount determined by a scheduler according to the data transmission method, and generates a fragmentation block (FB) (see para [0035] of Yeo). Thus, the RLC PDU 320 is interpreted as “the first user frame”; the FBs are interpreted as “SLC PDUs”; and therefore, the FB number field 321 f indicating the entire number of FBs is interpreted as “a total frame quantity field indicating a quantity of SLC PDUs … ”.); and
a frame sequence number field indicating a sequence number of the SLC PDU (Fig. 6 and para [0046] of Yeo: As shown in FIG. 6, the RLC information field 321 includes a type field 321 a, a link identifier field 321 b, and a sequence number field 321 c, and further includes a piggybagging indicator field 321 d, an end of buffer (EOB) indicator field 321 e, and an FB number field 321 f.) (para [0049] of Yeo: The sequence number field 321 c (interpreted as “a frame sequence number field indicating a sequence number of the SLC PDU”) indicates a sequence number that is allocated for the ARQ operation to the FB 325.).
Bedwell and Yeo fail to teach the “wherein the first user frame is a satellite link control (SLC) protocol data unit (PDU) in an SLC service data unit (SDU),” and “an acknowledgment mode (AM) enable field instructing the first terminal to reply with an acknowledgement (ACK) or not to reply with the ACK;”.
The “satellite link control (SLC)” is not a standard 3GPP acronym for a 5G protocol layer. Based on the 3GPP TR 38.821 V16.0.0 (2019-12) “Solutions for NR to support non-terrestrial networks (NTN)”, the terrestrial Radio Link Control (RLC) is used as is, even for satellite links (see Fig 5.1-3 : User plane Protocol stack (Transparent satellite).). Fig 5.1-3 of the 3GPP TR 38.821 V16.0.0 is reproduced herein below.
PNG
media_image1.png
405
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig 5.1-3 of the 3GPP TR 38.821 V16.0.0)
In accordance with 3GPP TR 38.821 V16.0.0 specification, the Radio Link Control (RLC) protocol data unit (PDU) corresponds to the claimed satellite link control (SLC) protocol data unit (PDU) in the context of the instant Office Action.
Bedwell, Yeo, and 3GPP TR 38.821 V16.0.0, however, fail to explicitly teaches the “protocol data unit (PDU) in an SLC service data unit (SDU),” and “an acknowledgment mode (AM) enable field instructing the first terminal to reply with an acknowledgement (ACK) or not to reply with the ACK;” as recited in claim 39.
Kubota is directed to methods and apparatus for radio link control (RLC) switching. In Kubota, Kubota teaches:
wherein the first user frame is a satellite link control (SLC) protocol data unit (PDU) in an SLC service data unit (SDU), (para [0006] of Kubota: Regarding the RLC protocol layer, in particular, this layer provides segmentation of data structures (e.g., Service Data units (SDUs)) from either the RRC or PDCP protocol layers into RLC protocol data units (PDUs) used for communication with the MAC layer.), and wherein the frame header information further comprises:
an acknowledgment mode (AM) enable field instructing the first terminal to reply with an acknowledgement (ACK) or not to reply with the ACK (para [0082] of Kubota: Furthermore, it is noted that there are at least a couple of ways to signal the RLC mode switch request 808 and the RLC mode switch acknowledgment 814 shown in FIG. 8. In an aspect, the signaling accomplished by signals 808 and 814 may be effected using either in-band signaling in a Data PDU or status PDU signaling. In furtherance of describing this concept, FIG. 10 illustrates an exemplary RLC Data PDU construction that may be used to implement in-band signaling of the signals 808 or 814. With in-band signaling, the RLC mode switch commands are signaled by RLC data protocol data units (PDUs). To this end, the present disclosure provides for a new field within the RLC Data PDU header. In particular, this field defines a mode switch request or acknowledgment field that is used to signal the RLC mode switch request 808, for example, with the new RLC mode information, or the RLC mode switch acknowledgment 814 in the other direction. As may be seen in FIG. 10, an RLC Data PDU 1000 is formatted with an N number of octets of 8 bits each (i.e. a byte). It is noted that a RLC PDU is a bit string with an N multiple of 8 bits or octets in length, and the representation of this bit string in FIG. 10 is illustrated in a table form.) (para [0083] of Kubota: The first octet 1002 (i.e., Oct 1) includes header information (interpreted as “frame header information”) having a number of bit fields in the octet. A first field 1004 of two bits in octet 1002 is the introduced signaling of the mode switch (MS) request (or acknowledgement field in the case of the acknowledgement from the peer to the originating RLC entity). Another field 1006 contain is a mode signal field that indicates whether the particular mode, such as AM (‘acknowledged mode (AM)’, interpreted as “an acknowledgment mode (AM) enable field instructing the first terminal to reply with an acknowledgement (ACK) or not to reply with the ACK”) or UM (‘unacknowledged mode’)...) (para [0006] of Kubota: an acknowledged mode (AM) that, in addition to the organization into PDUs, requires an acknowledgement from a receiver and allows retransmission if the packet is not acknowledged by the receiver (e.g., Automatic Repeat Request (ARQ)).).
Bedwell, Yeo, 3GPP TR 38.821 V16.0.0, and Kubota are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a data transmission method in a communication system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to have modified the combination of Bedwell and Yeo, based on the Technical Specification of 3GPP TR 38.821 V16.0.0, to incorporate the teachings of Kubota and provide an acknowledgment mode enable field instructing the first terminal to reply with an acknowledgement (ACK) or not to reply with the ACK. Doing so would effectively switch between at least AM and UM modes in a Radio Link Control to afford the ability to increase throughput when conditions permit (see para [0008] of Kubota).
Regarding Claim 52, Claim 52, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 39, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 39.
Regarding Claim 40, Bedwell, Yeo, 3GPP TR 38.821 V16.0.0, and Kubota teach The method of claim 39,
Kubota further teaches wherein the AM enable field has a value instructing the first terminal not to reply with the ACK (para [0083] of Kubota: The first octet 1002 (i.e., Oct 1) includes header information having a number of bit fields in the octet. A first field 1004 of two bits in octet 1002 is the introduced signaling of the mode switch (MS) request (or acknowledgement field in the case of the acknowledgement from the peer to the originating RLC entity). Another field 1006 contain is a mode signal field that indicates whether the particular mode, such as .. or UM (interpreted as “value instructing the first terminal not to reply with the ACK”))(para [0006] of Kubota: (2) an unacknowledged mode (UM) that segments and organizes data into PDUs, but does not require acknowledgement of successful receipt of packets from a receiver,).
Regarding Claim 53, Claim 53, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 40, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 40.
Regarding Claim 41, Bedwell, Yeo, 3GPP TR 38.821 V16.0.0, and Kubota teach The method of claim 39,
Kubota further teaches wherein the AM enable field has a value instructing the first terminal to reply with the ACK (para [0083] of Kubota: The first octet 1002 (i.e., Oct 1) includes header information having a number of bit fields in the octet. A first field 1004 of two bits in octet 1002 is the introduced signaling of the mode switch (MS) request (or acknowledgement field in the case of the acknowledgement from the peer to the originating RLC entity). Another field 1006 contain is a mode signal field that indicates whether the particular mode, such as AM (interpreted as “a value instructing the first terminal to reply with the ACK”)) (para [0006] of Kubota: an acknowledged mode (AM) that, in addition to the organization into PDUs, requires an acknowledgement from a receiver and allows retransmission if the packet is not acknowledged by the receiver (e.g., Automatic Repeat Request (ARQ)).).
Regarding Claim 54, Claim 54, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 41, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 41.
Claim(s) 42 and 55 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedwell, in view of Yeo, in view of 3GPP TR 38.821 V16.0.0 (2019-12) “Solutions for NR to support non-terrestrial networks (NTN)”, and further in view of Yeo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090135718, hereinafter “Yeo`718”).
Regarding Claim 42, Bedwell and Yeo teach The method of claim 38, wherein the first user frame is a first satellite link control (SLC) protocol data unit (PDU) in an SLC service data unit (SDU), and wherein after parsing out the first user frame and discarding the second user frame, the method further comprises:
Yeo further teaches:
receiving one or more SLC PDUs in the SLC SDU (para [0004] of Yeo: The transmitter divides a service data unit (SDU) of a medium access control (MAC) protocol into ARQ blocks (interpreted as “one or more SLC PDUs in the SLC SDU”) and transmits the same to the receiver. The receiver notifies the transmitter of the receiving status of the respective ARQ blocks. In this instance, the transmitter and the receiver must identify the transmitted blocks because it is possible to know which blocks the receiver has received and whether the receiver will request an ARQ for a predetermined block when they have identified the blocks. In order to identify the respective blocks, a block sequence number for identifying the transmitted blocks is applied to the respective blocks.)(Examiner’s note: It is noted that the initial fragmented block among the fragmented ARQ blocks received by the receiver (interpreted as “first terminal”) is mapped to the first SLC PDU in the SLC SDU. Subsequential fragmented blocks are defined as the “one or more SLC PDUs in the SLC SDU”). See Figs. 3-4 of Yeo) ; and
The “satellite link control (SLC)” is not a standard 3GPP acronym for a 5G protocol layer. Based on the 3GPP TR 38.821 V16.0.0 (2019-12) “Solutions for NR to support non-terrestrial networks (NTN)”, the terrestrial Radio Link Control (RLC) is used as is, even for satellite links (see Fig 5.1-3 : User plane Protocol stack (Transparent satellite).). In accordance with 3GPP TR 38.821 V16.0.0 specification, the Radio Link Control (RLC) protocol data unit (PDU) corresponds to the claimed satellite link control (SLC) protocol data unit (PDU) in the context of the instant Office Action.
Bedwell, Yeo, and 3GPP TR 38.821 V16.0.0, however fail to explicitly teach the sending, to the satellite network device after receiving the one or more SLC PDUs, an acknowledgement (ACK) indicating that the first terminal has successfully received the one or more SLC PDUs.
Yeo`718, in analogous art, discloses that, in Fig. 3 and para [0037] of Yeo`718, as shown in FIG. 3, an SDU 301 is fragmented into fragment blocks 302, 303 and 305 and transmitted. … A fragment block 1 denotes the 1st transmission quantity of the SDU; a fragment block 2, the 2nd transmission quantity of the SDU; and a fragment block n, the nth transmission quantity of the SDU. (Examiner’s note: The fragment block 1 (302) is interpreted as “first SLC PDU” and the fragment block 2 (303) is interpreted as “one or more SLC PDUs in the SLC SDU”) .
Yeo`718 discloses:
sending, to the satellite network device after receiving the one or more SLC PDUs, an acknowledgement (ACK) indicating that the first terminal has successfully received the one or more SLC PDUs (Fig. 3 and para [0037] of Yeo`718: As shown in FIG. 3, an SDU 301 is fragmented into fragment blocks 302, 303 and 305 and transmitted. A size of each fragment block can depend on an air channel status of the user equipment. A fragment block 1 denotes the 1st transmission quantity of the SDU (interpreted as “first SLC PDU”); a fragment block 2, the 2nd transmission quantity of the SDU (interpreted as “one or more SLC PDUs” in the SLC SDU); and a fragment block n, the nth transmission quantity of the SDU.).) (Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0039-0042] of Yeo`718: FIG. 4 is a block diagram showing a general ARQ/HARQ process and an ACK/NACK feedback process of the ARQ/HARQ in transmitter and receivers. Referring to FIG. 4, when a transmitter 402 transmits a transport block, a receiver physical layer processing unit (PHY) 410 decodes the transport block and transmits the transport block to a receiver HARQ 406. When decoding is successfully performed, the receiver HARQ 406 transmits the HARQ ACK on the air channel through the PHY 410. When decoding fails, the receiver HARQ 406 transmits the HARQ NACK on the air channel through the PHY 410. The receiver HARQ 406 transmits a fragment block corresponding to each buffer in the transport block to a receiver ARQ 405. The receiver ARQ 405 locates the transmitted fragment block in the inside of the buffer and the assembled SDU is transmitted to the upper layer. The receiver ARQ 405 searches a subscriber number (SN) of the fragment blocks in each buffer and forms the ARQ ACK/NACK message. When a predetermined condition is satisfied, the ARQ ACK/NACK message is transmitted to the transmitter.) (Fig. 5 and para [0045] of Yeo`718: Referring to FIG. 5, when a transmitter ARQ 501 transmits a fragment block (see 502) and a receiver ARQ 503 receives the fragment block, the receiver ARQ 503 transmits to the transmitter ARQ 501 whether the fragment block is successfully received (see 505) (interpreted as “sending, to the satellite network device after receiving the one or more SLC PDUs, an acknowledgement (ACK) indicating that the first terminal has successfully received the one or more SLC PDUs”). A reference number 504 includes a transmitting chain of the HARQ 406, the PHY 410, and the air channels 411, 412 and 414 of FIG. 4.).
Bedwell, Yeo, 3GPP TR 38.821 V16.0.0, and Yeo`718 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a data transmission method in a communication system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to have modified the combination of Bedwell and Yeo, based on the Technical Specification of 3GPP TR 38.821 V16.0.0, to incorporate the teachings of Yeo`718 and provide an acknowledgement (ACK) message indicating that the terminal has successfully received the one or more SLC PDUs.
Regarding Claim 55, Claim 55, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 42, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 42.
Claim(s) 44 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedwell, in view of Yeo, in view of 3GPP TR 38.821 V16.0.0 (2019-12) “Solutions for NR to support non-terrestrial networks (NTN)”, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20030007480, hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding Claim 44, Bedwell and Yeo teach The method of claim 38, wherein the first user frame is a first satellite link control (SLC) protocol data unit (PDU) in an SLC service data unit (SDU), and wherein after parsing out the first user frame and discarding the second user frame, the method further comprises:
Yeo further teaches:
receiving one or more SLC PDUs in the SLC SDU (para [0004] of Yeo: The transmitter divides a service data unit (SDU) of a medium access control (MAC) protocol into ARQ blocks (interpreted as “one or more SLC PDUs in the SLC SDU”) and transmits the same to the receiver. The receiver notifies the transmitter of the receiving status of the respective ARQ blocks. In this instance, the transmitter and the receiver must identify the transmitted blocks because it is possible to know which blocks the receiver has received and whether the receiver will request an ARQ for a predetermined block when they have identified the blocks. In order to identify the respective blocks, a block sequence number for identifying the transmitted blocks is applied to the respective blocks.)(Examiner’s note: It is noted that the initial fragmented block among the fragmented ARQ blocks received by the receiver (interpreted as “first terminal”) is mapped to the first SLC PDU in the SLC SDU. Subsequential fragmented blocks are defined as the “one or more SLC PDUs in the SLC SDU”). See Figs. 3-4 of Yeo) ; and
The “satellite link control (SLC)” is not a standard 3GPP acronym for a 5G protocol layer. Based on the 3GPP TR 38.821 V16.0.0 (2019-12) “Solutions for NR to support non-terrestrial networks (NTN)”, the terrestrial Radio Link Control (RLC) is used as is, even for satellite links (see Fig 5.1-3 : User plane Protocol stack (Transparent satellite).). In accordance with 3GPP TR 38.821 V16.0.0 specification, the Radio Link Control (RLC) protocol data unit (PDU) corresponds to the claimed satellite link control (SLC) protocol data unit (PDU) in the context of the instant Office Action.
Bedwell, Yeo, and 3GPP TR 38.821 V16.0.0, however fail to explicitly teach the sending, to the satellite network device after the first terminal does not receive all of the one or more SLC PDUs in the SLC SDU in an SLC PDU receive time window, an acknowledgement (ACK) indicating that the first terminal has failed to receive all of the one or more SLC PDUs in the SLC SDU.
Kim, in analogous art, discloses the sending, to the satellite network device after the first terminal does not receive all of the one or more SLC PDUs in the SLC SDU in an SLC PDU receive time window, an acknowledgement (ACK) indicating that the first terminal has failed to receive all of the one or more SLC PDUs in the SLC SDU (Fig. 6 and para [0049] of Kim: Referring to FIG. 6, the RLC operating in the AM receives MAC-DATA-IND from a lower layer, i.e., the MAC-h, in step 601, and analyzes SNs of the RLC PDUs included in the received MAC-DATA-IND in step 602. The RLC determines in step 603 whether there are non-received RLC PDUs. As a result of the determination, if there is no non-received RLC PDU, the RLC reassembles the received RLC PDUs into SDU (interpreted as “all of the one or more SLC PDUs in the SLC SDU”) in step 604. The RLC determines in step 605 whether the SDU is successfully reassembled. As a result of the determination, if the SDU is successfully reassembled, the RLC proceeds to step 609 where it transmits the reassembled SDU to the upper layer, and then ends the procedure. However, if the SDU is not successfully reassembled, the RLC proceeds to step 612 where it reassembles SDU by combining the RLC PDUs stored in a reception buffer with the RLC PDUs received through the MAC-DATA-IND, and then proceeds to step 613. In the case of step 612, there are non-received RLC PDUs in the previously received MAC-DATA-IND, and the non-received RLC PDUs are transmitted to the RLC through the HARQ.) (para [0050] of Kim: Meanwhile, if there exist non-received RLC PDUs in step 603, the RLC determines in step 606 whether the HARQ PROCESSING parameter is included in the received MAC-DATA-IND. As a result of the determination, if the HARQ PROCESSING parameter is not included in the MAC-DATA-IND, i.e., if the HARQ CLEAR parameter is included in the MAC-DATA-IND, then the RLC proceeds to step 607 where it reassembles the currently received RLC PDUs into SDU. After step 607, the RLC determines in step 608 whether the SDU is successfully reassembled. If the SDU is successfully reassembled, the RLC proceeds step 609. However, if the SDU is not successfully reassembled, the RLC proceeds to step 610 where it stores the SDU reassembly-failed RLC PDUs in the reception buffer. After step 610, the RLC determines in step 611 whether STATUS PDU Transmission Condition # 1 is satisfied. If the STATUS PDU Transmission Condition # 1 is satisfied, the RLC proceeds to step 618 where it transmits the STATUS PDU, and then ends the procedure. Here, the STATUS PDU Transmission Condition # 1 can be properly set according to the circumstances, and includes (1) a condition where there are the non-received PDUs, and (2) another condition where a preset timer has expired. (interpreted as “sending, to the satellite network device after the first terminal does not receive all of the one or more SLC PDUs in the SLC SDU in an SLC PDU receive time window, an acknowledgement (ACK) indicating that the first terminal has failed to receive all of the one or more SLC PDUs in the SLC SDU”) When these conditions are satisfied, the RLC transmits the STATUS PDU. In the present invention, a STATUS PDU transmission condition is divided into a case where the HARQ CLEAR parameter was transmitted and another case where the HARQ PROCESSING parameter was transmitted: the former is called “STATUS PDU Transmission Condition # 1” and the latter is called “STATUS PDU Transmission Condition # 2”. STATUS PDU Transmission Condition # 1 is prescribed in the same way as the existing STATUS PDU transmission condition. Further, STATUS PDU Transmission Condition # 1 is defined as a case where the HARQ CLEAR parameter is received in the common STATUS PDU transmission condition. STATUS PDU Transmission Condition # 2 will be described later.
Bedwell, Yeo, 3GPP TR 38.821 V16.0.0, and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a data transmission method in a communication system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to have modified the combination of Bedwell and Yeo, based on the Technical Specification of 3GPP TR 38.821 V16.0.0, to incorporate the teachings of Kim and provide a STATUS PDU indicating that there are the non-received PDUs for reassembling the SDU.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 43, 49, 50, and 56 appear to contain allowable subject matters underlined below pending on satisfactory of overcoming above 112 rejection and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the respective base claims and any intervening claims. The claims contain the following underlined features which, when combined with other features of the claim, prior art of record failed to anticipate or render obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application was filed.
Claims 43 and 56 contain: …
identifying that the first SLC PDU is not a first positioned SLC PDU within the SLC SDU; and
in response to identifying that the first SLC PDU is not a first positioned SLC PDU within the SLC SDU:
sending, to the satellite network device, an acknowledgement (ACK) indicating that the first terminal has failed to receive the first SLC PDU; and
stopping receiving a second SLC PDU in the SLC SDU.
Claims 49 and 50 contain: …
determining, based on a frame sequence number of a current satellite link control (SLC) protocol data unit (PDU), a moment of receiving the current SLC PDU, a first time length of the physical frame, a total quantity of frames of SLC PDUs in one SLC service data unit (SDU) from the satellite network device, and a transmission interval between the SLC PDUs, a remaining time length of an SLC PDU receive window on the first terminal.
Claim(s) 45-48 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The claims contain the following underlined features which, when combined with other features of the claim, prior art of record failed to anticipate or render obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application was filed:
Claim 45-48 contain: …
obtaining, from a third terminal at a physical layer (PHY), first spread modulated data;
despreading the first spread modulated data at the PHY to obtain first modulated data and a first modulation synchronization header;
demodulating the first modulated data and the first modulation synchronization header at the PHY to obtain first pilot data and a first synchronization header;
removing pilot information in the first pilot data at the PHY to obtain first code data;
decoding the first code data at the PHY to obtain a first code block physical frame and first check information;
checking, based on the first check information, a first code block at the PHY; and
delivering, after the checking has succeeded, as the first SLC PDU in the first SLC SDU at an SLC layer of the first terminal, and from the PHY to the SLC layer, the first user frame that is in the first code block and that has the first user ID field that is the same as an ID of the first terminal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON JUN CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1695. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 08:00 - 17:00.
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, Derrick W Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/WON JUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2411 /DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411