Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendments filed on 01/29/2026. Claims 1, 9, and 13 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner’s Interpretation
Instant specification par. 0024 recites “the first threshold and the minimum data packet transmission quantity of the first data may be a same parameter”. In order to further examine the claims, the examiner will interpret “first threshold” and “minimum data packet transmission quantity” in claims 1-2, 5-14, and 17-20 as the same.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, and 13 filed on 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections. In particular, Applicant argues on pages 7-9 of the Remarks that Torsner and Burchard do not teach or suggest the limitation “in response to determining that M is greater than or equal to a first threshold that indicates a quantity of times of transmissions of the first data, determining that the first data packet is a new data packet” and “N is a minimum data packet transmission quantity that indicates a quantity of times of transmissions of the first data”.
In the new grounds of rejections below, it is noted that Lunttila teaches the claimed limitation. Lunttila par. 0019 teaches number of transmissions is limited in a communication system by a maximum number of not successful transmissions and a data packet related to new information bits is transmitted once the maximum number of not successful transmissions is reached. Please note the maximum number of not successful transmissions is interpreted as a minimum quantity of times of transmissions. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Torsner and Lunttila’s teachings as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Torsner et al. (US Pat. Pub. 20110164664; hereinafter referred to as Torsner) in view of Lunttila et al. (US Pat. Pub. 20180376490; hereinafter referred to as Lunttila).
As per claims 1 and 13:
Torsner teaches a method for data transmission and a device for data transmission, comprising:
receiving, in a current transmission opportunity, control information and a first data packet from a first node (Torsner par. 0030, user terminal 36 receives RLC PDU segments from two eNodeBs 34), wherein the control information comprises a sequence number (SN) of the first data packet (Torsner par. 0032, RLC 52 performs re-segmentation, wherein a RLC PDU is split into several smaller PDU segments and each RLC PDU segment gets the same RLC sequence number as the original RLC PDU), the control information fails to be received, in M continuous transmission opportunities before the current transmission opportunity, from the first node, M is an integer greater than 0, the M continuous transmission opportunities and the current transmission opportunity are used to receive first data from the first node, and the first data comprises the first data packet (Torsner par. 0032, RLC 52 performs retransmissions upon reception of a status report containing negative acknowledgements for one or more RLC PDUs. Please note the data transmitted and received includes IP packets as stated in par. 0031).
Torsner does not explicitly disclose comprising at least one processor and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one memory stores programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor to cause the device to perform operations and in response to determining that M is greater than or equal to a first threshold that indicates a quantity of times of transmissions of the first data, determining that the first data packet is a new data packet. However, Lunttila discloses comprising at least one processor and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one memory stores programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor to cause the device to perform operations (Lunttila par. 0119, at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code is configured with the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to perform operations) and in response to determining that M is greater than or equal to a first threshold that indicates a quantity of times of transmissions of the first data, determining that the first data packet is a new data packet (Lunttila par. 0019 number of transmissions is limited in a communication system by a maximum number of not successful transmissions and a data packet related to new information bits is transmitted once the maximum number of not successful transmissions is reached).
Torsner and Lunttila are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor of data transmissions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lunttila’s determining of a new data packet according to a threshold with the method and device of Torsner because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of this combination would have been predictable since thresholds help prevent endless retransmissions and new data helps reduce latency and prevent buffer overflow.
As per claims 2 and 14:
Torsner and Lunttila further teach the method according to claim 1 and the device according to claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise: in response to determining that M is less than the first threshold (Lunttila par. 0019, retransmissions are sent until a maximum number of not successful transmissions), determining, based on the SN of the first data packet, whether the first data packet is a retransmission data packet or the new data packet (Lunttila par. 0016, sequence numbers are used to distinguish between new transmissions and retransmissions).
As per claims 3 and 15:
Torsner and Lunttila further teach the method according to claim 1 and the device according to claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise: in response to determining that the first data packet is a retransmission data packet, combining the first data packet with a previously received data packet, or discarding the first data packet (Lunttila par. 0019, combine obtained information with information from one or more retransmissions related to the same information bits).
As per claims 4 and 16:
Torsner and Lunttila further teach the method according to claim 1 and the device according to claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise: in response to determining that the first data packet is the new data packet, performing check on the first data packet, and delivering the first data packet that is successfully checked as the new data packet, or buffering the first data packet that fails to be checked (Lunttila par. 0019, use cyclic redundancy check to verify whether a data packet was received in error, wherein a new data packet is transmitted in case of an acknowledgement signal).
As per claims 5 and 17:
Torsner and Lunttila further teach the method according to claim 1 and the device according to claim 13, wherein the first threshold is less than or equal to a minimum data packet transmission quantity of the first data (Lunttila par. 0019).
As per claims 6 and 18:
Torsner and Lunttila further teach the method according to claim 1 and the device according to claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise: sending configuration signaling to the first node, wherein the configuration signaling comprises resource information, the resource information comprises information indicating one or more transmission opportunities for receiving the first data (Torsner par. 0034, re-segmentation functionality is used to create and transmit RLC PDU segments at the first transmission of data by either eNodeB 34 or UE 36. Please note the examiner is interpreting this as the configuration information), and the configuration signaling further comprises at least one of the following: a minimum data packet transmission quantity of the first data or the first threshold (Lunttila par. 0019).
As per claims 7 and 19:
Torsner and Lunttila further teach the method according to claim 1 and the device according to claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving configuration signaling from the first node, wherein the configuration signaling comprises resource information, the resource information comprises information indicating one or more transmission opportunities for receiving the first data (Torsner par. 0034, re-segmentation functionality is used to create and transmit RLC PDU segments at the first transmission of data by either eNodeB 34 or UE 36. Please note the examiner is interpreting this as the configuration information), and the configuration signaling further comprises at least one of the following: a minimum data packet transmission quantity of the first node or the first threshold (Lunttila par. 0019).
As per claims 8 and 20:
Torsner and Lunttila further teach the method accordingly to claim 6 and the device according to claim 18, wherein the minimum data packet transmission quantity of the first data is determined based on one or more of a service type, a delay requirement, and a cycle feature of the first data (Lunttila par. 0019, HARQ loop of eight subframes, wherein eight HARQ processes are needed in a data stream for continuous transmission).
As per claim 9:
Torsner teaches a method for data transmission, wherein the method comprises: determining that a first data packet fails to be transmitted to a second node in N continuous transmission opportunities used for sending first data; and sending a second data packet or stopping sending in a next transmission opportunity, wherein the first data comprises the first data packet, or the first data comprises the first data packet and the second data packet (Torsner par. 0032, RLC 52 performs retransmissions upon reception of a status report containing negative acknowledgements for one or more RLC PDUs. Please note the data transmitted and received includes IP packets as stated in par. 0031)
Torsner does not explicitly disclose wherein N is a minimum data packet transmission quantity that indicates a quantity of times of transmissions of the first data and is an integer greater than 0. However, Lunttila discloses wherein N is a minimum data packet transmission quantity that indicates a quantity of times of transmissions of the first data and is an integer greater than 0 (Lunttila par. 0019, number of transmissions is limited in a communication system by a maximum number of not successful transmissions. Please note the maximum number of not successful transmissions is interpreted as a minimum quantity of times of transmissions).
Torsner and Lunttila are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor of data transmissions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lunttila’s minimum transmit interpacket time with the method of Torsner because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of this combination would have been predictable since thresholds help prevent endless retransmissions.
As per claim 10:
Torsner and Lunttila further teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein the method further comprises: sending configuration signaling to the second node, wherein the configuration signaling comprises resource information, the resource information comprises information indicating one or more transmission opportunities for receiving the first data by the second node (Torsner par. 0034, re-segmentation functionality is used to create and transmit RLC PDU segments at the first transmission of data by either eNodeB 34 or UE 36. Please note the examiner is interpreting this as the configuration information), and the configuration signaling further comprises at least one of the following: the minimum data packet transmission quantity or a first threshold (Lunttila par. 0019).
As per claim 11:
Torsner and Lunttila further teach the method according to claim 9, wherein the method further comprises: receiving configuration signaling from the second node, wherein the configuration signaling comprises resource information, the resource information comprises information indicating one or more transmission opportunities for receiving the first data by the second node (Torsner par. 0034, re-segmentation functionality is used to create and transmit RLC PDU segments at the first transmission of data by either eNodeB 34 or UE 36. Please note the examiner is interpreting this as the configuration information), and the configuration signaling further comprises at least one of the following: the minimum data packet transmission quantity or a first threshold (Lunttila par. 0019).
As per claim 12:
Torsner and Lunttila further teach the method according to claim 10, wherein the first threshold is less than or equal to the minimum data packet transmission quantity (Lunttila par. 0019).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A YANG whose telephone number is (703)756-1447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. 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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at (571) 270-3750. 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.
/JEFFREY ANDREW YANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2111
/MARK D FEATHERSTONE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2111