Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 28, 2026, has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5-7, 17-18, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2023/0283564), in view of Suga (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2014/0313996).
Regarding Claim 1,
Shin teaches: A wireless device, comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to: transmit or receive a plurality of data packets via a data connection established via a wireless channel, the plurality of data packets being a sequence of data packets communicated via the data connection
[0054] Referring to FIG. 3A, 3-way handshake is performed in which the transmitter Ethernet controller 100 transmits Syn, the receiver Ethernet controller 200 transmits Syn/Ack including a window size value, and the transmitter Ethernet controller 100 transmits an Ack.
[0055] The TCP/IP module 120 of the transmitter Ethernet controller 100 sets the window size to the window size value (e.g., 12000 bytes) received from the receiver.
[0056] The TCP/IP module 120 continuously transmits 8 data packets (Data #1 to #8) of 1500 bytes, which correspond to 12000 bytes. In the illustrated example, packet loss of a fifth data packet (Data #5) occurs in the receiver.
identify a quantity of duplicate acknowledgment messages that are generated for the plurality of data packets
[0057] The receiver Ethernet controller 200 transmits a respective ACK (ACK #1 to #4) for each of the first to fourth data packets (Data #1 to #4) which are normally received, and since a sixth data packet (Data #6) is received next after the fourth data packet (Data #4), the receiver Ethernet controller 200 retransmits ACK #4 for the fourth data packet (Data #4) (DUP ACK).
[0058] The TCP/IP module 120 receives DUP ACK (ACK #4) and retransmits data packets (Data #5 to #8) that follow the data packet (Data #4) corresponding to ACK #4. In this case, time loss occurs during transmission of the data packets (Data #5 to #8) after reception of the DUP ACK (ACK #4).
wherein each message of the quantity of duplicate acknowledgment messages, including at least a first acknowledgment message, is identified as being a duplicate acknowledgment message based at least in part on
a second acknowledgment message indicating successful receipt of one of a same packet as the duplicate acknowledgment message
[0057] The receiver Ethernet controller 200 transmits a respective ACK (ACK #1 to #4) for each of the first to fourth data packets (Data #1 to #4) which are normally received, and since a sixth data packet (Data #6) is received next after the fourth data packet (Data #4), the receiver Ethernet controller 200 retransmits ACK #4 for the fourth data packet (Data #4) (DUP ACK).
[0058] The TCP/IP module 120 receives DUP ACK (ACK #4) and retransmits data packets (Data #5 to #8) that follow the data packet (Data #4) corresponding to ACK #4. In this case, time loss occurs during transmission of the data packets (Data #5 to #8) after reception of the DUP ACK (ACK #4).
Note: Here, the “second acknowledgement message” is the second ACK #4 in Figure 3A. This second acknowledgment aligns with the teaching behind the second acknowledgement of Figure 3 element 325 (the second “ACK3”).
Shin does not disclose the following final limitations of Claim 1.
However, Suga discloses the second acknowledgment message indicating successful receipt of one or more subsequent packets in the sequence of data packets.
[0059] There is a difference in communication speed between the wireless links A and B, and therefore the terminal 20 receives the packet 3(B) and the packet 4(B) before receiving the packet 2(A). Upon receipt of the packet 3(B), since the packet received next to the packet 1(B) by the terminal 20 is the packet 3(B) and the terminal 20 has not yet received the packet 2, the terminal 20 transmits the ACK 2 to the base station 10 again according to the protocol of TCP in order to request the base station 10 to transmit the packet 2. Upon receipt of the packet 4(B), since the
terminal 20 has not yet received the packet 2, the terminal 20 transmits the ACK 2 to the base station 10 once more in accordance with the protocol of TCP in order to request the base station 10 to transmit the packet 2.Note: ACK (2) in this reference represents the duplicate acknowledgment since Packet 2(A) is out of order in the sequence, ACK (2) reports an ACK for both Packets 3(B) and 4(B) within the same window, to which these packets occur after packet 2(A). The second acknowledgement is ACK (5), which indicates success occurring after Packet 2(A), and within the same time window (left Figure 4).
Suga further discloses the second acknowledgment message being generated within a time duration threshold of the duplicate acknowledgment message.
[0059] There is a difference in communication speed between the wireless links A and B, and therefore the terminal 20 receives the packet 3(B) and the packet 4(B) before receiving the packet 2(A). Upon receipt of the packet 3(B), since the packet received next to the packet 1(B) by the terminal 20 is the packet 3(B) and the terminal 20 has not yet received the packet 2, the terminal 20 transmits the ACK 2 to the base station 10 again according to the protocol of TCP in order to request the base station 10 to transmit the packet 2. Upon receipt of the packet 4(B), since the
terminal 20 has not yet received the packet 2, the terminal 20 transmits the ACK 2 to the base station 10 once more in accordance with the protocol of TCP in order to request the base station 10 to transmit the packet 2.Note: As stated above, the second acknowledgement is ACK (5), which indicates success occurring after Packet 2(A), and within the same time window (left Figure 4).
Suga also discloses perform a duplicate acknowledgment recovery procedure based at least in part on the quantity of duplicate acknowledgment messages satisfying a trigger threshold.
[0096] Operation 1002 for determining whether the number of duplicate ACKs associated with the reception time immediately preceding the latest reception time exceeds a threshold number of times is performed. At operation 1002, for example, the information illustrated in FIG. 8 is referred to, so that information on ACKs and duplication ACKs of TCP is referred to, and the number of duplicate ACKs associated with the reception time immediately preceding the latest reception time is compared with the threshold number of times. Note that the threshold number of times may be determined, as a criterion for performing packet delay processing described later, in accordance with the extent to which reversal of the order of packets is permitted. For example, if the number of duplicate ACKs is one, reversal of the order packets is to occur once. However, the communication speed difference caused by a difference in communication setting (for example, wireless link) changes moment by moment, and therefore the threshold number of times may be set to be greater than one, for example, in order to wait and see how the communication speed difference will change, without performing packet delay processing even if reversal of the order of packets has occurred once. In this way, the threshold number of times may be set suitably, and, for example, it may be separately set in accordance with the communication status of each base station. Then, if it is determined that the number of duplicate ACKs exceeds the threshold number of times, the process proceeds to operation 1003; if it is determined that the number of duplicate ACKs does not exceed the threshold number of times, the process proceeds to operation 1005.
Note: Reversing the order of the packets is the recovery procedure.
Shin in view of Suga are considered to be analogous because they pertain to a wireless communications network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin to include the concepts of having a second acknowledgement message indicating a receipt of subsequent packets within a specified time duration, as well as perming a recovery procedure based on the duplicate acknowledgements as taught by Suga so as to help reduce duplicate acknowledgement procedures.
Regarding Claim 5,
Shin teaches: The wireless device of claim 1, wherein one or more of the time duration threshold or the trigger threshold is based at least in part on a configuration of a communication protocol used for communicating the plurality of data packets via the data connection.
[0058] The TCP/IP module 120 receives DUP ACK (ACK #4) and retransmits data packets (Data #5 to #8) that follow the data packet (Data #4) corresponding to ACK #4. In this case, time loss occurs during transmission of the data packets (Data #5 to #8) after reception of the DUP ACK (ACK #4).
Note: In the primary reference the time loss is the time duration threshold, which occurs when using TCP.
Regarding Claim 6,
Shin teaches: The wireless device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to: transmit or receive the second acknowledgment message via the data connection.
[0058] The TCP/IP module 120 receives DUP ACK (ACK #4) and retransmits data packets (Data #5 to #8) that follow the data packet (Data #4) corresponding to ACK #4. In this case, time loss occurs during transmission of the data packets (Data #5 to #8) after reception of the DUP ACK (ACK #4).
Regarding Claim 7,
Shin teaches: The wireless device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of data packets are received by the wireless device in accordance with the sequence and forwarded to a protocol layer stack for generating acknowledgment messages in a different sequential order.
[0059] There is a difference in communication speed between the wireless links A and B, and therefore the terminal 20 receives the packet 3(B) and the packet 4(B) before receiving the packet 2(A). Upon receipt of the packet 3(B), since the packet received next to the packet 1(B) by the terminal 20 is the packet 3(B) and the terminal 20 has not yet received the packet 2, the terminal 20 transmits the ACK 2 to the base station 10 again according to the protocol of TCP in order to request the base station 10 to transmit the packet 2. Upon receipt of the packet 4(B), since the
terminal 20 has not yet received the packet 2, the terminal 20 transmits the ACK 2 to the base station 10 once more in accordance with the protocol of TCP in order to request the base station 10 to transmit the packet 2.
Shin in view of Suga are considered to be analogous because they pertain to a wireless communications network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin to include the concept of generating acknowledgment messages in a different sequential order as taught by Suga so as to help reduce duplicate acknowledgement procedures.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Shin teaches: A method for wireless communications at a wireless device, comprising: transmitting or receiving a plurality of data packets via a data connection established via a wireless channel, the plurality of data packets being a sequence of data packets communicated via the data connection
[0054] Referring to FIG. 3A, 3-way handshake is performed in which the transmitter Ethernet controller 100 transmits Syn, the receiver Ethernet controller 200 transmits Syn/Ack including a window size value, and the transmitter Ethernet controller 100 transmits an Ack.
[0055] The TCP/IP module 120 of the transmitter Ethernet controller 100 sets the window size to the window size value (e.g., 12000 bytes) received from the receiver.
[0056] The TCP/IP module 120 continuously transmits 8 data packets (Data #1 to #8) of 1500 bytes, which correspond to 12000 bytes. In the illustrated example, packet loss of a fifth data packet (Data #5) occurs in the receiver.
identifying a quantity of duplicate acknowledgment messages that are generated for the plurality of data packets
[0057] The receiver Ethernet controller 200 transmits a respective ACK (ACK #1 to #4) for each of the first to fourth data packets (Data #1 to #4) which are normally received, and since a sixth data packet (Data #6) is received next after the fourth data packet (Data #4), the receiver Ethernet controller 200 retransmits ACK #4 for the fourth data packet (Data #4) (DUP ACK).
[0058] The TCP/IP module 120 receives DUP ACK (ACK #4) and retransmits data packets (Data #5 to #8) that follow the data packet (Data #4) corresponding to ACK #4. In this case, time loss occurs during transmission of the data packets (Data #5 to #8) after reception of the DUP ACK (ACK #4).
wherein each message of the quantity of duplicate acknowledgment messages, including at least a first acknowledgment message, is identified as being a duplicate acknowledgment message based at least in part on
a second acknowledgment message indicating successful receipt of one of a same packet as the duplicate acknowledgment message
[0057] The receiver Ethernet controller 200 transmits a respective ACK (ACK #1 to #4) for each of the first to fourth data packets (Data #1 to #4) which are normally received, and since a sixth data packet (Data #6) is received next after the fourth data packet (Data #4), the receiver Ethernet controller 200 retransmits ACK #4 for the fourth data packet (Data #4) (DUP ACK).
[0058] The TCP/IP module 120 receives DUP ACK (ACK #4) and retransmits data packets (Data #5 to #8) that follow the data packet (Data #4) corresponding to ACK #4. In this case, time loss occurs during transmission of the data packets (Data #5 to #8) after reception of the DUP ACK (ACK #4).
Note: Here, the “second acknowledgement message” is the second ACK #4 in Figure 3A. This second acknowledgment aligns with the teaching behind the second acknowledgement of Figure 3 element 325 (the second “ACK3”).
Shin does not disclose the following final limitations of Claim 1.
However, Suga discloses the second acknowledgment message indicating successful receipt of one or more subsequent packets in the sequence of data packets.
[0059] There is a difference in communication speed between the wireless links A and B, and therefore the terminal 20 receives the packet 3(B) and the packet 4(B) before receiving the packet 2(A). Upon receipt of the packet 3(B), since the packet received next to the packet 1(B) by the terminal 20 is the packet 3(B) and the terminal 20 has not yet received the packet 2, the terminal 20 transmits the ACK 2 to the base station 10 again according to the protocol of TCP in order to request the base station 10 to transmit the packet 2. Upon receipt of the packet 4(B), since the
terminal 20 has not yet received the packet 2, the terminal 20 transmits the ACK 2 to the base station 10 once more in accordance with the protocol of TCP in order to request the base station 10 to transmit the packet 2.Note: ACK (2) in this reference represents the duplicate acknowledgment since Packet 2(A) is out of order in the sequence, ACK (2) reports an ACK for both Packets 3(B) and 4(B) within the same window, to which these packets occur after packet 2(A). The second acknowledgement is ACK (5), which indicates success occurring after Packet 2(A), and within the same time window (left Figure 4).
Suga further discloses the second acknowledgment message being generated within a time duration threshold of the duplicate acknowledgment message.
[0059] There is a difference in communication speed between the wireless links A and B, and therefore the terminal 20 receives the packet 3(B) and the packet 4(B) before receiving the packet 2(A). Upon receipt of the packet 3(B), since the packet received next to the packet 1(B) by the terminal 20 is the packet 3(B) and the terminal 20 has not yet received the packet 2, the terminal 20 transmits the ACK 2 to the base station 10 again according to the protocol of TCP in order to request the base station 10 to transmit the packet 2. Upon receipt of the packet 4(B), since the
terminal 20 has not yet received the packet 2, the terminal 20 transmits the ACK 2 to the base station 10 once more in accordance with the protocol of TCP in order to request the base station 10 to transmit the packet 2.Note: As stated above, the second acknowledgement is ACK (5), which indicates success occurring after Packet 2(A), and within the same time window (left Figure 4).
Suga also discloses performing a duplicate acknowledgment recovery procedure based at least in part on the quantity of duplicate acknowledgment messages satisfying a trigger threshold.
[0096] Operation 1002 for determining whether the number of duplicate ACKs associated with the reception time immediately preceding the latest reception time exceeds a threshold number of times is performed. At operation 1002, for example, the information illustrated in FIG. 8 is referred to, so that information on ACKs and duplication ACKs of TCP is referred to, and the number of duplicate ACKs associated with the reception time immediately preceding the latest reception time is compared with the threshold number of times. Note that the threshold number of times may be determined, as a criterion for performing packet delay processing described later, in accordance with the extent to which reversal of the order of packets is permitted. For example, if the number of duplicate ACKs is one, reversal of the order packets is to occur once. However, the communication speed difference caused by a difference in communication setting (for example, wireless link) changes moment by moment, and therefore the threshold number of times may be set to be greater than one, for example, in order to wait and see how the communication speed difference will change, without performing packet delay processing even if reversal of the order of packets has occurred once. In this way, the threshold number of times may be set suitably, and, for example, it may be separately set in accordance with the communication status of each base station. Then, if it is determined that the number of duplicate ACKs exceeds the threshold number of times, the process proceeds to operation 1003; if it is determined that the number of duplicate ACKs does not exceed the threshold number of times, the process proceeds to operation 1005.
Note: Reversing the order of the packets is the recovery procedure.
Shin in view of Suga are considered to be analogous because they pertain to a wireless communications network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin to include the concepts of having a second acknowledgement message indicating a receipt of subsequent packets within a specified time duration, as well as perming a recovery procedure based on the duplicate acknowledgements as taught by Suga so as to help reduce duplicate acknowledgement procedures.
Regarding Claim 29,
Claim 29 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Shin teaches: A wireless device for wireless communications, comprising: means for transmitting or receiving a plurality of data packets via a data connection established via a wireless channel, the plurality of data packets being a sequence of data packets communicated via the data connection
[0054] Referring to FIG. 3A, 3-way handshake is performed in which the transmitter Ethernet controller 100 transmits Syn, the receiver Ethernet controller 200 transmits Syn/Ack including a window size value, and the transmitter Ethernet controller 100 transmits an Ack.
[0055] The TCP/IP module 120 of the transmitter Ethernet controller 100 sets the window size to the window size value (e.g., 12000 bytes) received from the receiver.
[0056] The TCP/IP module 120 continuously transmits 8 data packets (Data #1 to #8) of 1500 bytes, which correspond to 12000 bytes. In the illustrated example, packet loss of a fifth data packet (Data #5) occurs in the receiver.
means for identifying a quantity of duplicate acknowledgment messages that are generated for the plurality of data packets
[0057] The receiver Ethernet controller 200 transmits a respective ACK (ACK #1 to #4) for each of the first to fourth data packets (Data #1 to #4) which are normally received, and since a sixth data packet (Data #6) is received next after the fourth data packet (Data #4), the receiver Ethernet controller 200 retransmits ACK #4 for the fourth data packet (Data #4) (DUP ACK).
[0058] The TCP/IP module 120 receives DUP ACK (ACK #4) and retransmits data packets (Data #5 to #8) that follow the data packet (Data #4) corresponding to ACK #4. In this case, time loss occurs during transmission of the data packets (Data #5 to #8) after reception of the DUP ACK (ACK #4).
wherein each message of the quantity of duplicate acknowledgment messages, including at least a first acknowledgment message, is identified as being a duplicate acknowledgment message based at least in part on
a second acknowledgment message indicating successful receipt of one of a same packet as the duplicate acknowledgment message
[0057] The receiver Ethernet controller 200 transmits a respective ACK (ACK #1 to #4) for each of the first to fourth data packets (Data #1 to #4) which are normally received, and since a sixth data packet (Data #6) is received next after the fourth data packet (Data #4), the receiver Ethernet controller 200 retransmits ACK #4 for the fourth data packet (Data #4) (DUP ACK).
[0058] The TCP/IP module 120 receives DUP ACK (ACK #4) and retransmits data packets (Data #5 to #8) that follow the data packet (Data #4) corresponding to ACK #4. In this case, time loss occurs during transmission of the data packets (Data #5 to #8) after reception of the DUP ACK (ACK #4).
Note: Here, the “second acknowledgement message” is the second ACK #4 in Figure 3A. This second acknowledgment aligns with the teaching behind the second acknowledgement of Figure 3 element 325 (the second “ACK3”).
Shin does not disclose the following final limitations of Claim 1.
However, Suga discloses the second acknowledgment message indicating successful receipt of one or more subsequent packets in the sequence of data packets.
[0059] There is a difference in communication speed between the wireless links A and B, and therefore the terminal 20 receives the packet 3(B) and the packet 4(B) before receiving the packet 2(A). Upon receipt of the packet 3(B), since the packet received next to the packet 1(B) by the terminal 20 is the packet 3(B) and the terminal 20 has not yet received the packet 2, the terminal 20 transmits the ACK 2 to the base station 10 again according to the protocol of TCP in order to request the base station 10 to transmit the packet 2. Upon receipt of the packet 4(B), since the
terminal 20 has not yet received the packet 2, the terminal 20 transmits the ACK 2 to the base station 10 once more in accordance with the protocol of TCP in order to request the base station 10 to transmit the packet 2.Note: ACK (2) in this reference represents the duplicate acknowledgment since Packet 2(A) is out of order in the sequence, ACK (2) reports an ACK for both Packets 3(B) and 4(B) within the same window, to which these packets occur after packet 2(A). The second acknowledgement is ACK (5), which indicates success occurring after Packet 2(A), and within the same time window (left Figure 4).
Suga further discloses the second acknowledgment message being generated within a time duration threshold of the duplicate acknowledgment message.
[0059] There is a difference in communication speed between the wireless links A and B, and therefore the terminal 20 receives the packet 3(B) and the packet 4(B) before receiving the packet 2(A). Upon receipt of the packet 3(B), since the packet received next to the packet 1(B) by the terminal 20 is the packet 3(B) and the terminal 20 has not yet received the packet 2, the terminal 20 transmits the ACK 2 to the base station 10 again according to the protocol of TCP in order to request the base station 10 to transmit the packet 2. Upon receipt of the packet 4(B), since the
terminal 20 has not yet received the packet 2, the terminal 20 transmits the ACK 2 to the base station 10 once more in accordance with the protocol of TCP in order to request the base station 10 to transmit the packet 2.Note: As stated above, the second acknowledgement is ACK (5), which indicates success occurring after Packet 2(A), and within the same time window (left Figure 4).
Suga also discloses means for performing a duplicate acknowledgment recovery procedure based at least in part on the quantity of duplicate acknowledgment messages satisfying a trigger threshold.
[0096] Operation 1002 for determining whether the number of duplicate ACKs associated with the reception time immediately preceding the latest reception time exceeds a threshold number of times is performed. At operation 1002, for example, the information illustrated in FIG. 8 is referred to, so that information on ACKs and duplication ACKs of TCP is referred to, and the number of duplicate ACKs associated with the reception time immediately preceding the latest reception time is compared with the threshold number of times. Note that the threshold number of times may be determined, as a criterion for performing packet delay processing described later, in accordance with the extent to which reversal of the order of packets is permitted. For example, if the number of duplicate ACKs is one, reversal of the order packets is to occur once. However, the communication speed difference caused by a difference in communication setting (for example, wireless link) changes moment by moment, and therefore the threshold number of times may be set to be greater than one, for example, in order to wait and see how the communication speed difference will change, without performing packet delay processing even if reversal of the order of packets has occurred once. In this way, the threshold number of times may be set suitably, and, for example, it may be separately set in accordance with the communication status of each base station. Then, if it is determined that the number of duplicate ACKs exceeds the threshold number of times, the process proceeds to operation 1003; if it is determined that the number of duplicate ACKs does not exceed the threshold number of times, the process proceeds to operation 1005.
Note: Reversing the order of the packets is the recovery procedure.
Shin in view of Suga are considered to be analogous because they pertain to a wireless communications network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin to include the concepts of having a second acknowledgement message indicating a receipt of subsequent packets within a specified time duration, as well as perming a recovery procedure based on the duplicate acknowledgements as taught by Suga so as to help reduce duplicate acknowledgement procedures.
Regarding Claim 30,
Claim 30 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Shin teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communications, the code comprising instructions executable by one or more processors to: transmit or receive a plurality of data packets via a data connection established via a wireless channel, the plurality of data packets being a sequence of data packets communicated via the data connection
[0054] Referring to FIG. 3A, 3-way handshake is performed in which the transmitter Ethernet controller 100 transmits Syn, the receiver Ethernet controller 200 transmits Syn/Ack including a window size value, and the transmitter Ethernet controller 100 transmits an Ack.
[0055] The TCP/IP module 120 of the transmitter Ethernet controller 100 sets the window size to the window size value (e.g., 12000 bytes) received from the receiver.
[0056] The TCP/IP module 120 continuously transmits 8 data packets (Data #1 to #8) of 1500 bytes, which correspond to 12000 bytes. In the illustrated example, packet loss of a fifth data packet (Data #5) occurs in the receiver.
identify a quantity of duplicate acknowledgment messages that are generated for the plurality of data packets
[0057] The receiver Ethernet controller 200 transmits a respective ACK (ACK #1 to #4) for each of the first to fourth data packets (Data #1 to #4) which are normally received, and since a sixth data packet (Data #6) is received next after the fourth data packet (Data #4), the receiver Ethernet controller 200 retransmits ACK #4 for the fourth data packet (Data #4) (DUP ACK).
[0058] The TCP/IP module 120 receives DUP ACK (ACK #4) and retransmits data packets (Data #5 to #8) that follow the data packet (Data #4) corresponding to ACK #4. In this case, time loss occurs during transmission of the data packets (Data #5 to #8) after reception of the DUP ACK (ACK #4).
wherein each message of the quantity of duplicate acknowledgment messages, including at least a first acknowledgment message, is identified as being a duplicate acknowledgment message based at least in part on
a second acknowledgment message indicating successful receipt of one of a same packet as the duplicate acknowledgment message
[0057] The receiver Ethernet controller 200 transmits a respective ACK (ACK #1 to #4) for each of the first to fourth data packets (Data #1 to #4) which are normally received, and since a sixth data packet (Data #6) is received next after the fourth data packet (Data #4), the receiver Ethernet controller 200 retransmits ACK #4 for the fourth data packet (Data #4) (DUP ACK).
[0058] The TCP/IP module 120 receives DUP ACK (ACK #4) and retransmits data packets (Data #5 to #8) that follow the data packet (Data #4) corresponding to ACK #4. In this case, time loss occurs during transmission of the data packets (Data #5 to #8) after reception of the DUP ACK (ACK #4).
Note: Here, the “second acknowledgement message” is the second ACK #4 in Figure 3A. This second acknowledgment aligns with the teaching behind the second acknowledgement of Figure 3 element 325 (the second “ACK3”).
Shin does not disclose the following final limitations of Claim 1.
However, Suga discloses the second acknowledgment message indicating successful receipt of one or more subsequent packets in the sequence of data packets.
[0059] There is a difference in communication speed between the wireless links A and B, and therefore the terminal 20 receives the packet 3(B) and the packet 4(B) before receiving the packet 2(A). Upon receipt of the packet 3(B), since the packet received next to the packet 1(B) by the terminal 20 is the packet 3(B) and the terminal 20 has not yet received the packet 2, the terminal 20 transmits the ACK 2 to the base station 10 again according to the protocol of TCP in order to request the base station 10 to transmit the packet 2. Upon receipt of the packet 4(B), since the
terminal 20 has not yet received the packet 2, the terminal 20 transmits the ACK 2 to the base station 10 once more in accordance with the protocol of TCP in order to request the base station 10 to transmit the packet 2.Note: ACK (2) in this reference represents the duplicate acknowledgment since Packet 2(A) is out of order in the sequence, ACK (2) reports an ACK for both Packets 3(B) and 4(B) within the same window, to which these packets occur after packet 2(A). The second acknowledgement is ACK (5), which indicates success occurring after Packet 2(A), and within the same time window (left Figure 4).
Suga further discloses the second acknowledgment message being generated within a time duration threshold of the duplicate acknowledgment message.
[0059] There is a difference in communication speed between the wireless links A and B, and therefore the terminal 20 receives the packet 3(B) and the packet 4(B) before receiving the packet 2(A). Upon receipt of the packet 3(B), since the packet received next to the packet 1(B) by the terminal 20 is the packet 3(B) and the terminal 20 has not yet received the packet 2, the terminal 20 transmits the ACK 2 to the base station 10 again according to the protocol of TCP in order to request the base station 10 to transmit the packet 2. Upon receipt of the packet 4(B), since the
terminal 20 has not yet received the packet 2, the terminal 20 transmits the ACK 2 to the base station 10 once more in accordance with the protocol of TCP in order to request the base station 10 to transmit the packet 2.Note: As stated above, the second acknowledgement is ACK (5), which indicates success occurring after Packet 2(A), and within the same time window (left Figure 4).
Suga also discloses perform a duplicate acknowledgment recovery procedure based at least in part on the quantity of duplicate acknowledgment messages satisfying a trigger threshold.
[0096] Operation 1002 for determining whether the number of duplicate ACKs associated with the reception time immediately preceding the latest reception time exceeds a threshold number of times is performed. At operation 1002, for example, the information illustrated in FIG. 8 is referred to, so that information on ACKs and duplication ACKs of TCP is referred to, and the number of duplicate ACKs associated with the reception time immediately preceding the latest reception time is compared with the threshold number of times. Note that the threshold number of times may be determined, as a criterion for performing packet delay processing described later, in accordance with the extent to which reversal of the order of packets is permitted. For example, if the number of duplicate ACKs is one, reversal of the order packets is to occur once. However, the communication speed difference caused by a difference in communication setting (for example, wireless link) changes moment by moment, and therefore the threshold number of times may be set to be greater than one, for example, in order to wait and see how the communication speed difference will change, without performing packet delay processing even if reversal of the order of packets has occurred once. In this way, the threshold number of times may be set suitably, and, for example, it may be separately set in accordance with the communication status of each base station. Then, if it is determined that the number of duplicate ACKs exceeds the threshold number of times, the process proceeds to operation 1003; if it is determined that the number of duplicate ACKs does not exceed the threshold number of times, the process proceeds to operation 1005.
Note: Reversing the order of the packets is the recovery procedure.
Shin in view of Suga are considered to be analogous because they pertain to a wireless communications network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin to include the concepts of having a second acknowledgement message indicating a receipt of subsequent packets within a specified time duration, as well as perming a recovery procedure based on the duplicate acknowledgements as taught by Suga so as to help reduce duplicate acknowledgement procedures.
Claims 2-4, 15-16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Suga, held further in view of Bathwal et. al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2022/0287125), herein referred to as “Bathwal.”
Regarding Claim 2,
Shin in view of Suga does not explicitly disclose all the limitations of Claim 2.
However, Bathwal discloses: The wireless device of claim 1, wherein one or more of the time duration threshold or the trigger threshold is based at least in part on one or more channel condition metrics of the wireless channel.
[0081] At 412, based on the BLERs measured at 410, the UE 402 may determine whether the BLERs of the split bearer traffic of the compressed UL data packets transmitted to the first and second RLC entities are greater than or equal to a threshold BLER value for a time duration. In response to detecting that the BLERs of the split bearer traffic transmitted to one or more of the first and second RLC entities are greater than or equal to a threshold BLER value for a time duration, the UE 402 may transmit one or more uncompressed data packets to one or more of the first and second RLC entities corresponding to the BLERs of the transmitted split bearer traffic that are greater than or equal to the threshold BLER value for the time duration at 416.
Shin in view of Suga and Bathwal are considered to be analogous because they pertain to a wireless communications network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin in view of Suga to include the concept of having a threshold based on channel conditions as taught by Bathwal so as to help reduce duplicate acknowledgement procedures.
Regarding Claim 3,
Shin in view of Suga does not explicitly disclose all the limitations of Claim 3.
However, Bathwal discloses: The wireless device of claim 2, wherein the one or more channel condition metrics of the wireless channel comprises a pathloss metric, a round trip time, a layer two round trip time, an end-to-end round trip time, a block error rate, a layer one block error rate, a layer two block error rate, or any combination thereof.
[0081] At 412, based on the BLERs measured at 410, the UE 402 may determine whether the BLERs of the split bearer traffic of the compressed UL data packets transmitted to the first and second RLC entities are greater than or equal to a threshold BLER value for a time duration. In response to detecting that the BLERs of the split bearer traffic transmitted to one or more of the first and second RLC entities are greater than or equal to a threshold BLER value for a time duration, the UE 402 may transmit one or more uncompressed data packets to one or more of the first and second RLC entities corresponding to the BLERs of the transmitted split bearer traffic that are greater than or equal to the threshold BLER value for the time duration at 416.
Shin in view of Suga and Bathwal are considered to be analogous because they pertain to a wireless communications network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin in view of Siga to include the concept of channel conditions consisting of BLER as taught by Bathwal so as to help reduce duplicate acknowledgement procedures.
Regarding Claim 4,
Shin in view of Suga does not explicitly disclose all the limitations of Claim 4.
However, Bathwal discloses: The wireless device of claim 1, wherein one or more of the time duration threshold or the trigger threshold is based at least in part on a radio access technology type of the wireless device used to communicate the plurality of data packets, a sub-carrier spacing used to communicate the plurality of data packets, a frequency band used to communicate the plurality of data packets, or any combination thereof.
[0070] The UE may continuously monitor the BLERs of the split bearer traffic of the UL data packet transmission to the two RAT-specific RLC entities and determine whether the BLERs of the split bearer traffic transmitted to at least one of the two RAT-specific RLC entities are greater than or equal to a threshold BLER value for a time duration. That is, the UE may measure the BLERs of the split bearer traffic of the UL data packet transmission to the two RAT-specific RLC entities and determine whether the measured BLERs of the split bearer traffic transmitted to at least one of the two RAT-specific RLC entities are greater than or equal to a threshold BLER value for a time duration. In response to detecting that the BLERs of the split bearer traffic transmitted to one or more of the two RAT-specific RLC entities are greater than or equal to a threshold BLER value for a time duration, the UE may transmit one or more uncompressed data packets to one or more of the two RAT-specific RLC entities corresponding to the BLERs of the transmitted split bearer traffic that are greater than or equal to the threshold BLER value for the time duration.
Shin in view of Sug and Bathwal are considered to be analogous because they pertain to a wireless communications network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin in view of Suga to include the concept of having the threshold being based on a radio access technology as taught by Bathwal so as to help reduce duplicate acknowledgement procedures.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Regarding Claim 19,
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Regarding Claim 21,
Claim 21 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Claims 8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Suga, held further in view of Sagfors (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2004/0218617).
Regarding Claim 8,
Shin in view of Suga does not explicitly disclose all the limitations of Claim 8.
However, Sagfors discloses: The wireless device of claim 1, wherein the time duration threshold is based at least in part on an end-to-end round trip time for a transmission of at least one data packet of the plurality of data packets from a transmitter to the wireless device.
[0142] If the buffer exceeds this limit, newly arriving packets are dropped (i.e. the classical drop-on-full policy is applied). A minimum threshold T.sub.min [in bytes/packets] is then defined. This threshold defines the level up to which all packets are accepted, regardless of buffering delay. Preferably, this level should be set to at least 3 packets, to allow for an initial TCP load. The timer threshold t.sub.TIME [in seconds] is then defined. This threshold is based on an estimate of the end-to-end RTT, where the wireless link is the dominating latency source. Note that t.sub.TIME can be adaptive based on actual measurements from the link.
Shin in view of Suga and Sagfors are considered to be analogous because they pertain to a wireless communications network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin in view of Suga to include the concept of having the threshold being based on an end-to-end round trip time is based at least in part on an end-to-end round trip time as taught by Sagfors so as to help reduce duplicate acknowledgement procedures.
Regarding Claim 22,
Claim 22 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 8.
Claims 9 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Suga, held further in view of Ludwig and Ekstrom (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2008/0126562), herein referred to as “Ludwig”. The Ludwig reference was provided in the information disclosure statement dated September 30, 2024.
Regarding Claim 9,
Shin in view of Suga does not explicitly disclose all the limitations of Claim 9.
However, Ludwig teaches: The wireless device of claim 1, wherein, to perform the duplicate acknowledgment recovery procedure, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to:
remove one or more acknowledgment messages identified as being a duplicate from a transmission buffer.
[0041] The receiving peer (not shown in FIG. 1) receives the data segments and acknowledges the receipt of the data segments with an acknowledgement message returned to the sending peer. These acknowledgement messages from the receiving peer are received at the sending peer in an operation 102. If operation is normal and data segments transmitted in a sequence are received in the same sequence at the receiving peer, each data packet is acknowledged with an acknowledgement message and the sending peer knows that the data segments are received in the proper order of the sequence. The data segments which have been transmitted from the sending peer and properly acknowledged, can be discarded, e.g. removed from a transmit buffer at the sending peer, as it a retransmission of the transmitted data segments will not be required.
Shin in view of Suga and Ludwig are considered to be analogous because they pertain to a wireless communications network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin in view of Suga to include the concept of removing a duplicate acknowledgment message from the buffer as taught by Ludwig so as to help reduce duplicate acknowledgement procedures.
Regarding Claim 23,
Claim 23 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 9.
Claims 10 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Suga, held further in view of Ramaiah et. al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2005/0160293), herein referred to as “Ramaiah”.
Regarding Claim 10,
Shin in view of Suga does not explicitly disclose all the limitations of Claim 10.
However, Ramaiah discloses: The wireless device of claim 1, wherein, to perform the duplicate acknowledgment recovery procedure, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to:
remove one or more acknowledgment messages identified as being a duplicate from a receive buffer.
[0061] FIG. 5A is a flow diagram that illustrates an approach performed by a sender of data for removing spurious data segments from a re-assembly buffer using duplicate ACK messages as a trigger; FIG. 5B is a flow diagram that illustrates steps in the approach performed by a receiver of data for removing spurious data segments from a re- assembly buffer using duplicate ACK messages as a trigger; FIG. 5C is a message flow diagram that illustrates an example of operation of FIG. 5A; and FIG. 5D is a message flow diagram showing further steps in the example of FIG. 5C.
Shin in view of Suga and Ramaiah are considered to be analogous because they pertain to data transmissions in a communications network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin in view of Suga to include the concept of removing duplicate acknowledgement messages from a receive buffer as taught by Ramaiah so as to help reduce duplicate acknowledgement procedures.
Regarding Claim 24,
Claim 24 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 10.
Claims 11 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Suga, held further in view of Malladi et. al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2016/0380724), herein referred to as “Malladi”.
Regarding Claim 11,
Shin in view of Suga does not explicitly disclose all the limitations of Claim 11.
However, Malladi discloses: The wireless device of claim 1, wherein, to perform the duplicate acknowledgment recovery procedure, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to:
transmit a retransmission of a duplicate acknowledgment message having a first payload that is different than a second payload communicated in a prior transmission of the duplicate acknowledgment message, wherein the first payload fails to satisfy a checksum or error check procedure associated with the duplicate acknowledgment message.
[0030] With ARQ techniques, if a receiver fails to decode a packet received from a transmitter, the transmitter may repeatedly send duplicate versions of the failed packet. Other systems may employ HARQ. HARQ may not involve retransmission of duplicate packets but may include the modification of certain physical parameters. For example, with HARQ, the bits of retransmitted packets may be encoded with an error-correction code. In some cases, the receiver may store the failed packet and soft combine it with a retransmitted packet.
[0032] For instance, a soft HARQ technique referred to herein as incremental chase combining (ICC) HARQ may be employed to support error correction at high data rates while using smaller buffer sizes than other error correction techniques. By way of example, a fixed buffer of size B may be allocated. If a first transmission includes C0 bits, the receiver may attempt to decode C0 bits. If the receiver successfully decodes the first transmission, the receiver may send an acknowledgement message (ACK) to the transmitter. If the decoding fails, the receiver may store B bits, or fewer than B bits, in the buffer. For example, if C0 is larger than B, a portion of the original transmission of size B bits may be stored in the buffer. If C0 is smaller than B, all bits may be stored in the buffer. The bits sent to the decoder or stored in the buffer may be coded bit LLRs. If the decode fails, the receiver may send a negative ACK (NACK) to inform the transmitter that the decode failed. The transmitter may then transmit a second transmission containing C1 bits. The receiver may soft combine the stored bits in the buffer with the second transmission. This combined signal may be sent to the decoder.
Note: The HARQ process includes an ACK for packets received correctly, and NACK otherwise. Here, the “decoding” process is the error check procedure (per Application’s specification paragraph [0124]). The payloads C0 and C1 are different payloads, where C0 can fail the decoding process and be a different size than C1, which makes up the second transmission.
Ludwig in view of Newman and Malladi are considered to be analogous because they pertain to a wireless communications network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ludwig in view of Newman to include the concept of comparing a payload based on the failure of an error check as taught by Malladi so as to help reduce duplicate acknowledgement procedures.
Regarding Claim 25,
Claim 25 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 11.
Claims 12 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Suga, held further in view of Zhang (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2023/0155738).
Regarding Claim 12,
Shin in view of Suga does not explicitly disclose all the limitations of Claim 12.
However, Zhang discloses: The wireless device of claim 1, wherein the duplicate acknowledgment recovery procedure indicates that transmission of the second acknowledgment message is prioritized over transmission of the first acknowledgment message via a radio bearer, a logical channel, or both.
[0383] The second receiver 1301 receives a first physical-layer signaling via an air interface, detects a first MAC PDU via an air interface, the first MAC PDU comprises a first MAC header and a first MAC SDU; the second transmitter 1302 transmits a first HARQ-ACK on a first channel in a first channel set, or, drops a transmission of a first HARQ-ACK; herein, the first channel set comprises Q channel(s), Q being a non-negative integer; whether the first HARQ-ACK is transmitted is related to Q, the first channel set is reserved for the first HARQ-ACK, and the first HARQ-ACK indicates whether the first MAC PDU is correctly decoded; the first physical-layer signaling comprises scheduling information of the first MAC PDU; whether a number of continuous HARQ DTXs reaches a first threshold is used to determine Q; the first MAC SDU is transmitted through a first radio bearer, and the first radio bearer is unrelated to whether the number of the continuous HARQ DTXs reaches the first threshold.
[0387] In one embodiment, the second transmitter 1302, after time-domain resources occupied by the first channel set, transmits a second MAC PDU via an air interface, the second MAC PDU comprises a second MAC header and a second MAC SDU; transmits a second HARQ-ACK on a channel in a second channel set, and the second HARQ-ACK indicates whether a third MAC PDU is correctly decoded; the second receiver 1301 receives a third MAC PDU via an air interface, and the third MAC PDU comprises a third MAC header and a third MAC SDU; herein, the number of the continuous HARQ DTXs reaches the first threshold; the second MAC PDU is used to determine that Q2 channel(s) is(are) comprised in the second channel set, and the third MAC PDU is transmitted through the first radio bearer.
Shin in view of Suga and Zhang are considered to be analogous because they pertain to a wireless communications network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin in view of Suga to include the concept of having an acknowledgment prioritized based on a radio bearer as taught by Zhang so as to help reduce duplicate acknowledgement procedures.
Regarding Claim 26,
Claim 26 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 12.
Claims 13 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Suga, held further in view of Takeda et. al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2021/0194622), herein referred to as “Takeda”.
Regarding Claim 13,
Shin in view of Suga does not explicitly disclose all the limitations of Claim 13.
However, Takeda discloses: The wireless device of claim 1, wherein, to perform the duplicate acknowledgment recovery procedure, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to: transmit or receive the second acknowledgment message over a first radio link, a first component carrier, or both; and transmit or receive the second acknowledgment message over a second radio link, a second component carrier, or both.
[0123] Transmission timings of the first HARQ-ACKs duplicate in the slot #5 and the slot #15, and therefore the first HARQ-ACK of each cell (a CC #1 and a CC #2 in this case) is multiplexed on a PUCCH of a given cell and transmitted. On the other hand, the transmission timings of the first HARQ-ACKs and the transmission timings of the second HARQ-ACKs duplicate in the slot #0 and the slot #10, and therefore control is performed to drop the first HARQ-ACKs, and transmit the second HARQ-ACKs.
Shin in view of Suga and Takeda are considered to be analogous because they pertain to a wireless communications network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin in view of Suga to include the concept of having an acknowledgment be transmitted over component carriers as taught by Takeda so as to help reduce duplicate acknowledgement procedures.
Regarding Claim 27,
Claim 27 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 13.
Claims 14 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Suga, held further in view of Hanes et. al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2021/0067450), herein referred to as “Hanes”.
Regarding Claim 14,
Shin in view of Suga does not explicitly disclose all the limitations of Claim 14.
However, Hanes discloses: The wireless device of claim 1, wherein, to identify the quantity of duplicate acknowledgment messages, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to: identify the quantity of duplicate acknowledgment messages during an observation time window, wherein a duration of the observation time window is based at least in part on one or more channel condition metrics of the wireless channel.
[0062] In some implementations of TCP, a lost segment may always reset transmission to slow start. Fast recovery can avoid returning the session to slow start if the loss is detected via duplicate ACKs. Instead, when fast retransmit is triggered, ssthresh and the congestion window can both be set to half the current congestion window and the session can remain in congestion avoidance mode. This effectively skips over slow start. While the missing segment is being resolved, the acknowledgment of further out-of-order segments can allow new segments to be transmitted while still maintaining the allowed number of segments in flight. The duplicate ACKs do not trigger an increase in the congestion window. If fast retransmit is not successful, a timeout can occur, and the session can revert to slow start. In some implementations of TCP, regular retransmission and a reset to slow start can occur if more than one segment is lost within an RTT. If the same segment is retransmitted multiple times, the timeout window can increase exponentially, and the session performance may be significantly impacted.
Shin in view of Suga and Hanes are considered to be analogous because they pertain to data transmissions in a communications network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin in view of Suga to include the concept of having a time window based on channel conditions as taught by Hanes so as to help reduce duplicate acknowledgement procedures.
Regarding Claim 28,
Claim 28 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response filed on July 28, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to independent claims 1, 18, 29, and 30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE P. SAMLUK whose telephone number is (571)270-5607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 Ferris can be reached on 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.
/JESSE P. SAMLUK/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights