CTFR 18/459,772 CTFR 97883 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 5-7, 9, 17-18, 23, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig and Ekstrom (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2008/0126562), herein referred to as “Ludwig”, in view of Newman and Rajkotia (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2014/0254351), herein referred to as “Newman.” These references were provided in the information disclosure statement dated September 30, 2024 . Regarding Claim 1, Ludwig 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 [0083] FIG. 6 illustrates a sending peer 600, such as any kind of computing device, e.g. a desktop computer, laptop computer, mobile computing device such as PDA or mobile telephone and similar. The invention is equally applicable to wire-bound data exchange as well as wireless or at least partially wireless data transmission. [0084] The sending peer comprises transmitting/retransmitting means 601 for transmitting data segments from the sending peer to the receiving peer in the order of the sequence and for retransmitting a data segment determined to be lost, as noted with regard to previous embodiments. [0090] FIG. 7 illustrates a sending peer and a receiving peer, as for example noted with regard to previous embodiments. identify a quantity of duplicate acknowledgment messages that are generated for the plurality of data packets [0065 ] If operation 303 determines that the number of acknowledgments has reached the threshold, then the oldest unacknowledged segment is retransmitted in operation 305. The oldest unacknowledged segment then immediately follows the segment identified in the duplicate acknowledgments. On the other hand, if the outcome of operation 303 is negative, the flow proceeds to operation 304 to also consider the situation at the sending peer. wherein 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 a same packet as the first acknowledgment message and successful receipt of one or more subsequent packets in the sequence of data packets [0009] Another such mechanism is that of counting duplicate acknowledgements. A duplicate acknowledgement is an acknowledgement that identifies as the last correctly received data segment a data segment that has already been acknowledged previously. [0085] Further, the sending peer comprises receiving means 602, for receiving acknowledgement messages from the receiving peer, were an acknowledgement message in case the correct receipt of a data segment in the proper order of the sequence, and for receiving a duplicate acknowledgement message from the receiving peer if a data segment was received, but not in the proper order of the sequence, the duplicate acknowledgement message being received in association with the last correctly received data segment in order of the sequence of data segments. and wherein the first acknowledgment message is identified as being the duplicate acknowledgment message [0061] In operation 302 it is determined if the acknowledgement is a duplicate acknowledgement . Namely, the number of times N that the specific acknowledgement, which identifies the last correctly received data segment of the sequence that was received in the proper order of the sequence, is determined and it is judged if this number N is larger than 1. If not, then the ACK is not a duplicate ACK, and the procedure returns to the general flow control. based at least in part on the second acknowledgment message being generated within a time duration threshold of the first acknowledgment message [0086] Further, the sending peer comprises packet loss determining means 603 for deciding that a data segment was lost which was sent but not acknowledged , if the number of duplicate acknowledgement messages reaches a duplicate acknowledgement message threshold determined based on the size of a receive window, the size of the receive window corresponding to a number of data segments which can be stored in a buffer space at the receiving peer. The packet loss determining means may obtain information on the size of the receive window with acknowledgement messages received from the receiving peer, or by any other means. Note: The duplicate acknowledgment message threshold is being interpreted as the “time duration threshold.” Paragraph [0058] of Ludwig defines the duplicate acknowledgment message threshold as: [0058] In FIG. 2, in an operation 201, it is decided whether the duplicate acknowledgement message threshold should be updated according to conditions to be described later. If the decision is "YES", in operation 202, in accordance with the above said, the duplicate acknowledgement message threshold is set such that the data segment determined to be lost is retransmitted at or before a point in time in the sequence of data segments selected such that the acknowledgement message indicating proper receipt of the data segment determined to be lost is expected to be received at the sending peer before the data segment with a sequence number exceeding the sequence number of the data segment determined to be lost by the size of the receive window is scheduled for transmission. “[A]t or before a point in time” is indicative of a time duration. and perform a duplicate acknowledgment recovery procedure based at least in part on the quantity of duplicate acknowledgment messages satisfying a trigger threshold [0060] FIG. 3 shows a flow chart that describes an embodiment of the present invention. The left hand side of the flow chart relates to general flow control, and due to the fact that the present invention is not concerned with the general type of flow control, e.g. as provided by TCP or any other flow control protocol, this part is only shown schematically as a dashed line. The right hand side of the Fig. discloses a procedure for handling duplicate acknowledgements. Namely, if in the course of the general flow control an acknowledgement (ACK) is received, see operation 301 then the procedure for handling duplicate acknowledgements is triggered. [0062] If the outcome of operation 302 indicates that the acknowledgement is a duplicate acknowledgement, the procedure goes to operation 303, where it is determined if N(ACK) reached the duplicate acknowledgement threshold Th. Depending on the implementation, the duplicate acknowledgement threshold may be considered to be reached if N(ACK) is equal to the duplicate acknowledgement threshold. Alternatively, the duplicate acknowledgement threshold may be considered to be reached if N(ACK) is larger than the duplicate acknowledgement threshold. Ludwig does not disclose successful receipt of one or more subsequent packets in the sequence of data packets. However, Newman discloses successful receipt of one or more subsequent packets in the sequence of data packets. [0064] At 640, a second example is illustrated in which the devices utilize a combined selective acknowledgment protocol. At 642 a first PDU is communicated via the interface a1 of first device 610 to interface b1 of second device 620. At 644 a second PDU is communicated via the interface a2 of first device 610 to interface b2 of second device 620. In the example in FIG. 6, the second device 620 sends a combined selective acknowledgement message at 648 via the interfaces b2 to a2. It should be understood that the combined selective acknowledgement message could be transmitted using either path or connection. The combined SACK message may indicate missing sequence numbers for either or both of the first PDU (642) or the second PDU (644). [0074] Example: If the receiver has received all sequence numbers from 0 to 4000 except for 3991, 3990, 3985, 3984, then the SACK may be coded as Length=3, Starting sequence number=4000, SACK Info=111111111001111001111111, NHA Flag=TRUE, NLN Flag=TRUE. Ludwig in view of Newman 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 to include the concept of having a successful receipt of one or more subsequent packets in the sequence of data packets as taught by Newman so as to help reduce duplicate acknowledgement procedures. Regarding Claim 5, Ludwig 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. [0108] The communication device of FIG. 6 may be configured to perform the above calculations and operations. [0110] Further, in another embodiment, the communication device comprises means for determining the duplicate acknowledgement threshold on the basis of a size of a usable window constituted by the difference between the size of the receive window and a flight size, the flight size representing the number of transmitted data segments which have not yet been acknowledged. Regarding Claim 6, Ludwig 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. [0034] FIG. 7 shows a detailed illustration of a flow of data segments and acknowledgement messages between a sending peer and a receiving peer to illustrate determination of the duplicate acknowledgement threshold. [0065] If operation 303 determines that the number of acknowledgments has reached the threshold, then the oldest unacknowledged segment is retransmitted in operation 305. The oldest unacknowledged segment then immediately follows the segment identified in the duplicate acknowledgments. On the other hand, if the outcome of operation 303 is negative, the flow proceeds to operation 304 to also consider the situation at the sending peer. Regarding Claim 9, Ludwig 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. Regarding Claim 9, Ludwig teaches: The wireless device of claim 1, wherein, to 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. 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. Ludwig 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 [0083] FIG. 6 illustrates a sending peer 600, such as any kind of computing device, e.g. a desktop computer, laptop computer, mobile computing device such as PDA or mobile telephone and similar. The invention is equally applicable to wire-bound data exchange as well as wireless or at least partially wireless data transmission. [0084] The sending peer comprises transmitting/retransmitting means 601 for transmitting data segments from the sending peer to the receiving peer in the order of the sequence and for retransmitting a data segment determined to be lost, as noted with regard to previous embodiments. [0090] FIG. 7 illustrates a sending peer and a receiving peer, as for example noted with regard to previous embodiments. identifying a quantity of duplicate acknowledgment messages that are generated for the plurality of data packets [0065 ] If operation 303 determines that the number of acknowledgments has reached the threshold, then the oldest unacknowledged segment is retransmitted in operation 305. The oldest unacknowledged segment then immediately follows the segment identified in the duplicate acknowledgments. On the other hand, if the outcome of operation 303 is negative, the flow proceeds to operation 304 to also consider the situation at the sending peer. wherein 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 a same packet as the first acknowledgment message and successful receipt of one or more subsequent packets in the sequence of data packets [0009] Another such mechanism is that of counting duplicate acknowledgements. A duplicate acknowledgement is an acknowledgement that identifies as the last correctly received data segment a data segment that has already been acknowledged previously. [0085] Further, the sending peer comprises receiving means 602, for receiving acknowledgement messages from the receiving peer, were an acknowledgement message in case the correct receipt of a data segment in the proper order of the sequence, and for receiving a duplicate acknowledgement message from the receiving peer if a data segment was received, but not in the proper order of the sequence, the duplicate acknowledgement message being received in association with the last correctly received data segment in order of the sequence of data segments. and wherein the first acknowledgment message is identified as being the duplicate acknowledgment message [0061] In operation 302 it is determined if the acknowledgement is a duplicate acknowledgement . Namely, the number of times N that the specific acknowledgement, which identifies the last correctly received data segment of the sequence that was received in the proper order of the sequence, is determined and it is judged if this number N is larger than 1. If not, then the ACK is not a duplicate ACK, and the procedure returns to the general flow control. based at least in part on the second acknowledgment message being generated within a time duration threshold of the first acknowledgment message [0086] Further, the sending peer comprises packet loss determining means 603 for deciding that a data segment was lost which was sent but not acknowledged , if the number of duplicate acknowledgement messages reaches a duplicate acknowledgement message threshold determined based on the size of a receive window, the size of the receive window corresponding to a number of data segments which can be stored in a buffer space at the receiving peer. The packet loss determining means may obtain information on the size of the receive window with acknowledgement messages received from the receiving peer, or by any other means. Note: The duplicate acknowledgment message threshold is being interpreted as the “time duration threshold.” Paragraph [0058] of Ludwig defines the duplicate acknowledgment message threshold as: [0058] In FIG. 2, in an operation 201, it is decided whether the duplicate acknowledgement message threshold should be updated according to conditions to be described later. If the decision is "YES", in operation 202, in accordance with the above said, the duplicate acknowledgement message threshold is set such that the data segment determined to be lost is retransmitted at or before a point in time in the sequence of data segments selected such that the acknowledgement message indicating proper receipt of the data segment determined to be lost is expected to be received at the sending peer before the data segment with a sequence number exceeding the sequence number of the data segment determined to be lost by the size of the receive window is scheduled for transmission. “[A]t or before a point in time” is indicative of a time duration. and performing a duplicate acknowledgment recovery procedure based at least in part on the quantity of duplicate acknowledgment messages satisfying a trigger threshold [0060] FIG. 3 shows a flow chart that describes an embodiment of the present invention. The left hand side of the flow chart relates to general flow control, and due to the fact that the present invention is not concerned with the general type of flow control, e.g. as provided by TCP or any other flow control protocol, this part is only shown schematically as a dashed line. The right hand side of the Fig. discloses a procedure for handling duplicate acknowledgements. Namely, if in the course of the general flow control an acknowledgement (ACK) is received, see operation 301 then the procedure for handling duplicate acknowledgements is triggered. [0062] If the outcome of operation 302 indicates that the acknowledgement is a duplicate acknowledgement, the procedure goes to operation 303, where it is determined if N(ACK) reached the duplicate acknowledgement threshold Th. Depending on the implementation, the duplicate acknowledgement threshold may be considered to be reached if N(ACK) is equal to the duplicate acknowledgement threshold. Alternatively, the duplicate acknowledgement threshold may be considered to be reached if N(ACK) is larger than the duplicate acknowledgement threshold. Ludwig does not disclose successful receipt of one or more subsequent packets in the sequence of data packets. However, Newman discloses successful receipt of one or more subsequent packets in the sequence of data packets. [0064] At 640, a second example is illustrated in which the devices utilize a combined selective acknowledgment protocol. At 642 a first PDU is communicated via the interface a1 of first device 610 to interface b1 of second device 620. At 644 a second PDU is communicated via the interface a2 of first device 610 to interface b2 of second device 620. In the example in FIG. 6, the second device 620 sends a combined selective acknowledgement message at 648 via the interfaces b2 to a2. It should be understood that the combined selective acknowledgement message could be transmitted using either path or connection. The combined SACK message may indicate missing sequence numbers for either or both of the first PDU (642) or the second PDU (644). [0074] Example: If the receiver has received all sequence numbers from 0 to 4000 except for 3991, 3990, 3985, 3984, then the SACK may be coded as Length=3, Starting sequence number=4000, SACK Info=111111111001111001111111, NHA Flag=TRUE, NLN Flag=TRUE. Ludwig in view of Newman 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 to include the concept of having a successful receipt of one or more subsequent packets in the sequence of data packets as taught by Newman 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. Regarding Claim 29, Claim 29 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1. Ludwig 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 [0083] FIG. 6 illustrates a sending peer 600, such as any kind of computing device, e.g. a desktop computer, laptop computer, mobile computing device such as PDA or mobile telephone and similar. The invention is equally applicable to wire-bound data exchange as well as wireless or at least partially wireless data transmission. [0084] The sending peer comprises transmitting/retransmitting means 601 for transmitting data segments from the sending peer to the receiving peer in the order of the sequence and for retransmitting a data segment determined to be lost, as noted with regard to previous embodiments. [0090] FIG. 7 illustrates a sending peer and a receiving peer, as for example noted with regard to previous embodiments. means for identifying a quantity of duplicate acknowledgment messages that are generated for the plurality of data packets [0065 ] If operation 303 determines that the number of acknowledgments has reached the threshold, then the oldest unacknowledged segment is retransmitted in operation 305. The oldest unacknowledged segment then immediately follows the segment identified in the duplicate acknowledgments. On the other hand, if the outcome of operation 303 is negative, the flow proceeds to operation 304 to also consider the situation at the sending peer. wherein 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 a same packet as the first acknowledgment message and successful receipt of one or more subsequent packets in the sequence of data packets [0009] Another such mechanism is that of counting duplicate acknowledgements. A duplicate acknowledgement is an acknowledgement that identifies as the last correctly received data segment a data segment that has already been acknowledged previously. [0085] Further, the sending peer comprises receiving means 602, for receiving acknowledgement messages from the receiving peer, were an acknowledgement message in case the correct receipt of a data segment in the proper order of the sequence, and for receiving a duplicate acknowledgement message from the receiving peer if a data segment was received, but not in the proper order of the sequence, the duplicate acknowledgement message being received in association with the last correctly received data segment in order of the sequence of data segments. and wherein the first acknowledgment message is identified as being the duplicate acknowledgment message [0061] In operation 302 it is determined if the acknowledgement is a duplicate acknowledgement . Namely, the number of times N that the specific acknowledgement, which identifies the last correctly received data segment of the sequence that was received in the proper order of the sequence, is determined and it is judged if this number N is larger than 1. If not, then the ACK is not a duplicate ACK, and the procedure returns to the general flow control. based at least in part on the second acknowledgment message being generated within a time duration threshold of the first acknowledgment message [0086] Further, the sending peer comprises packet loss determining means 603 for deciding that a data segment was lost which was sent but not acknowledged , if the number of duplicate acknowledgement messages reaches a duplicate acknowledgement message threshold determined based on the size of a receive window, the size of the receive window corresponding to a number of data segments which can be stored in a buffer space at the receiving peer. The packet loss determining means may obtain information on the size of the receive window with acknowledgement messages received from the receiving peer, or by any other means. Note: The duplicate acknowledgment message threshold is being interpreted as the “time duration threshold.” Paragraph [0058] of Ludwig defines the duplicate acknowledgment message threshold as: [0058] In FIG. 2, in an operation 201, it is decided whether the duplicate acknowledgement message threshold should be updated according to conditions to be described later. If the decision is "YES", in operation 202, in accordance with the above said, the duplicate acknowledgement message threshold is set such that the data segment determined to be lost is retransmitted at or before a point in time in the sequence of data segments selected such that the acknowledgement message indicating proper receipt of the data segment determined to be lost is expected to be received at the sending peer before the data segment with a sequence number exceeding the sequence number of the data segment determined to be lost by the size of the receive window is scheduled for transmission. “[A]t or before a point in time” is indicative of a time duration. and means for performing a duplicate acknowledgment recovery procedure based at least in part on the quantity of duplicate acknowledgment messages satisfying a trigger threshold [0060] FIG. 3 shows a flow chart that describes an embodiment of the present invention. The left hand side of the flow chart relates to general flow control, and due to the fact that the present invention is not concerned with the general type of flow control, e.g. as provided by TCP or any other flow control protocol, this part is only shown schematically as a dashed line. The right hand side of the Fig. discloses a procedure for handling duplicate acknowledgements. Namely, if in the course of the general flow control an acknowledgement (ACK) is received, see operation 301 then the procedure for handling duplicate acknowledgements is triggered. [0062] If the outcome of operation 302 indicates that the acknowledgement is a duplicate acknowledgement, the procedure goes to operation 303, where it is determined if N(ACK) reached the duplicate acknowledgement threshold Th. Depending on the implementation, the duplicate acknowledgement threshold may be considered to be reached if N(ACK) is equal to the duplicate acknowledgement threshold. Alternatively, the duplicate acknowledgement threshold may be considered to be reached if N(ACK) is larger than the duplicate acknowledgement threshold. Ludwig does not disclose successful receipt of one or more subsequent packets in the sequence of data packets. However, Newman discloses successful receipt of one or more subsequent packets in the sequence of data packets. [0064] At 640, a second example is illustrated in which the devices utilize a combined selective acknowledgment protocol. At 642 a first PDU is communicated via the interface a1 of first device 610 to interface b1 of second device 620. At 644 a second PDU is communicated via the interface a2 of first device 610 to interface b2 of second device 620. In the example in FIG. 6, the second device 620 sends a combined selective acknowledgement message at 648 via the interfaces b2 to a2. It should be understood that the combined selective acknowledgement message could be transmitted using either path or connection. The combined SACK message may indicate missing sequence numbers for either or both of the first PDU (642) or the second PDU (644). [0074] Example: If the receiver has received all sequence numbers from 0 to 4000 except for 3991, 3990, 3985, 3984, then the SACK may be coded as Length=3, Starting sequence number=4000, SACK Info=111111111001111001111111, NHA Flag=TRUE, NLN Flag=TRUE. Ludwig in view of Newman 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 to include the concept of having a successful receipt of one or more subsequent packets in the sequence of data packets as taught by Newman 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. Ludwig 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 [0083] FIG. 6 illustrates a sending peer 600, such as any kind of computing device, e.g. a desktop computer, laptop computer, mobile computing device such as PDA or mobile telephone and similar. The invention is equally applicable to wire-bound data exchange as well as wireless or at least partially wireless data transmission. [0084] The sending peer comprises transmitting/retransmitting means 601 for transmitting data segments from the sending peer to the receiving peer in the order of the sequence and for retransmitting a data segment determined to be lost, as noted with regard to previous embodiments. [0090] FIG. 7 illustrates a sending peer and a receiving peer, as for example noted with regard to previous embodiments. identify a quantity of duplicate acknowledgment messages that are generated for the plurality of data packets [0065 ] If operation 303 determines that the number of acknowledgments has reached the threshold, then the oldest unacknowledged segment is retransmitted in operation 305. The oldest unacknowledged segment then immediately follows the segment identified in the duplicate acknowledgments. On the other hand, if the outcome of operation 303 is negative, the flow proceeds to operation 304 to also consider the situation at the sending peer. wherein 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 a same packet as the first acknowledgment message and successful receipt of one or more subsequent packets in the sequence of data packets [0009] Another such mechanism is that of counting duplicate acknowledgements. A duplicate acknowledgement is an acknowledgement that identifies as the last correctly received data segment a data segment that has already been acknowledged previously. [0085] Further, the sending peer comprises receiving means 602, for receiving acknowledgement messages from the receiving peer, were an acknowledgement message in case the correct receipt of a data segment in the proper order of the sequence, and for receiving a duplicate acknowledgement message from the receiving peer if a data segment was received, but not in the proper order of the sequence, the duplicate acknowledgement message being received in association with the last correctly received data segment in order of the sequence of data segments. and wherein the first acknowledgment message is identified as being the duplicate acknowledgment message [0061] In operation 302 it is determined if the acknowledgement is a duplicate acknowledgement . Namely, the number of times N that the specific acknowledgement, which identifies the last correctly received data segment of the sequence that was received in the proper order of the sequence, is determined and it is judged if this number N is larger than 1. If not, then the ACK is not a duplicate ACK, and the procedure returns to the general flow control. based at least in part on the second acknowledgment message being generated within a time duration threshold of the first acknowledgment message [0086] Further, the sending peer comprises packet loss determining means 603 for deciding that a data segment was lost which was sent but not acknowledged , if the number of duplicate acknowledgement messages reaches a duplicate acknowledgement message threshold determined based on the size of a receive window, the size of the receive window corresponding to a number of data segments which can be stored in a buffer space at the receiving peer. The packet loss determining means may obtain information on the size of the receive window with acknowledgement messages received from the receiving peer, or by any other means. Note: The duplicate acknowledgment message threshold is being interpreted as the “time duration threshold.” Paragraph [0058] of Ludwig defines the duplicate acknowledgment message threshold as: [0058] In FIG. 2, in an operation 201, it is decided whether the duplicate acknowledgement message threshold should be updated according to conditions to be described later. If the decision is "YES", in operation 202, in accordance with the above said, the duplicate acknowledgement message threshold is set such that the data segment determined to be lost is retransmitted at or before a point in time in the sequence of data segments selected such that the acknowledgement message indicating proper receipt of the data segment determined to be lost is expected to be received at the sending peer before the data segment with a sequence number exceeding the sequence number of the data segment determined to be lost by the size of the receive window is scheduled for transmission. “[A]t or before a point in time” is indicative of a time duration. and perform a duplicate acknowledgment recovery procedure based at least in part on the quantity of duplicate acknowledgment messages satisfying a trigger threshold. [0060] FIG. 3 shows a flow chart that describes an embodiment of the present invention. The left hand side of the flow chart relates to general flow control, and due to the fact that the present invention is not concerned with the general type of flow control, e.g. as provided by TCP or any other flow control protocol, this part is only shown schematically as a dashed line. The right hand side of the Fig. discloses a procedure for handling duplicate acknowledgements. Namely, if in the course of the general flow control an acknowledgement (ACK) is received, see operation 301 then the procedure for handling duplicate acknowledgements is triggered. [0062] If the outcome of operation 302 indicates that the acknowledgement is a duplicate acknowledgement, the procedure goes to operation 303, where it is determined if N(ACK) reached the duplicate acknowledgement threshold Th. Depending on the implementation, the duplicate acknowledgement threshold may be considered to be reached if N(ACK) is equal to the duplicate acknowledgement threshold. Alternatively, the duplicate acknowledgement threshold may be considered to be reached if N(ACK) is larger than the duplicate acknowledgement threshold. Ludwig does not disclose successful receipt of one or more subsequent packets in the sequence of data packets. However, Newman discloses successful receipt of one or more subsequent packets in the sequence of data packets. [0064] At 640, a second example is illustrated in which the devices utilize a combined selective acknowledgment protocol. At 642 a first PDU is communicated via the interface a1 of first device 610 to interface b1 of second device 620. At 644 a second PDU is communicated via the interface a2 of first device 610 to interface b2 of second device 620. In the example in FIG. 6, the second device 620 sends a combined selective acknowledgement message at 648 via the interfaces b2 to a2. It should be understood that the combined selective acknowledgement message could be transmitted using either path or connection. The combined SACK message may indicate missing sequence numbers for either or both of the first PDU (642) or the second PDU (644). [0074] Example: If the receiver has received all sequence numbers from 0 to 4000 except for 3991, 3990, 3985, 3984, then the SACK may be coded as Length=3, Starting sequence number=4000, SACK Info=111111111001111001111111, NHA Flag=TRUE, NLN Flag=TRUE. Ludwig in view of Newman 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 to include the concept of having a successful receipt of one or more subsequent packets in the sequence of data packets as taught by Newman so as to help reduce duplicate acknowledgement procedures . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-4, 15-16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig in view of Newman, held further in view of Bathwal et. al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2022/0287125), herein referred to as “Bathwal.” Regarding Claim 2, Ludwig in view of Newman 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. Ludwig in view of Newman 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 Ludwig in view of Newman 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, Ludwig in view of Newman 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. Ludwig in view of Newman 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 Ludwig in view of Newman 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, Ludwig in view of Newman 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. Ludwig in view of Newman 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 Ludwig in view of Newman 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig in view of Newman, held further in view of Sagfors (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2004/0218617) . Regarding Claim 8, Ludwig in view of Newman 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. Ludwig in view of Newman 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 Ludwig in view of Newman 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 10 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig in view of Newman, held further in view of Ramaiah et. al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2005/0160293), herein referred to as “Ramaiah” . Regarding Claim 10, Ludwig in view of Newman does not explicitly disclose all the limitations of Claim 10. However, Ramaiah discloses: The wireless device of claim 1, wherein, to 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; F IG. 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. Ludwig in view of Newman 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 Ludwig in view of Newman 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig in view of Newman, held further in view of Malladi et. al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2016/0380724), herein referred to as “Malladi” . Regarding Claim 11, Ludwig in view of Newman does not explicitly disclose all the limitations of Claim 11. However, Malladi discloses: The wireless device of claim 1, wherein, to 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig in view of Newman, held further in view of Zhang (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2023/0155738) . Regarding Claim 12, Ludwig in view of Newman 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. Ludwig in view of Newman 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 Ludwig in view of Newman 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 13 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig in view of Newman, held further in view of Takeda et. al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2021/0194622), herein referred to as “Takeda” . Regarding Claim 13, Ludwig in view of Newman does not explicitly disclose all the limitations of Claim 13. However, Takeda discloses: The wireless device of claim 1, wherein, to 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. Ludwig in view of Newman 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 Ludwig in view of Newman 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 14 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig in view of Newman, held further in view of Hanes et. al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2021/0067450), herein referred to as “Hanes” . Regarding Claim 14, Ludwig in view of Newman 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. Ludwig in view of Newman 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 Ludwig in view of Newman 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 January 15, 2025 is acknowledged. No claims were amended. There are no new claims and no canceled claims. Claims 1-30 are pending. 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed with respect to independent claims 1, 18, 29, and 30 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues against the use of primary reference Ludwig does not teach the that the “first acknowledgement message is identified as being the duplicate acknowledgment message based at least in part on the second acknowledgment message being generated within a time duration threshold of the first acknowledgment message.” Id . at 11. Ludwig satisfies both conditions set forth in the claims. Per cited paragraph [0086], inter alia , the determination of the duplicate acknowledgement message that is “generated within a time duration threshold” is clarified by paragraph [0058] of Ludwig, and, as restated here, the duplicate acknowledgment threshold discussed in paragraph [0086] is indicative of a time duration threshold: Note: The duplicate acknowledgment message threshold is being interpreted as the “time duration threshold.” Paragraph [0058] of Ludwig defines the duplicate acknowledgment message threshold as: [0058] In FIG. 2, in an operation 201, it is decided whether the duplicate acknowledgement message threshold should be updated according to conditions to be described later. If the decision is "YES", in operation 202, in accordance with the above said, the duplicate acknowledgement message threshold is set such that the data segment determined to be lost is retransmitted at or before a point in time in the sequence of data segments selected such that the acknowledgement message indicating proper receipt of the data segment determined to be lost is expected to be received at the sending peer before the data segment with a sequence number exceeding the sequence number of the data segment determined to be lost by the size of the receive window is scheduled for transmission. “[A]t or before a point in time” is indicative of a time duration. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/459,772 Page 2 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/459,772 Page 3 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/459,772 Page 4 Art Unit: 2411
Prosecution Insights