DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 7/14/2026.
In the amendment, Applicant amended claims 1, 16, 19, and 20.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 7/14/2026, with respect to the objection to claim 16 and they are persuasive. Examiner has withdrawn the objection to claim 16.
Examiner has fully considered Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 7/14/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, Applicant summarizes the prior art used in the rejection. On pages 7-8, Applicant cites portions of the MPEP related to obviousness rejections. On pages 8-10, Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not disclose the limitation “jointly decompand each subset of companded LLRs that are associated with a same modulation symbol based on single bit signs corresponding to the subset of companded LLRs” of amended claim 1 and the analogous limitations of claims 19 and 20.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant notes that Mitra uses single bit signs as well as a magnitude component to decompress/decompand the compressed/companded LLRs. Examiner maintains that this decompression using single sign bits (and a magnitude component) is based on at least one sign bit. That is, the decompression does not work without the input of at least one bit sign and thus the decompression depends upon and is based on the at least one sign bit. Therefore, the amended claims are rejected in view of Mitra and Nekuii.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra et al (US 9,503,305) in view of Nekuii (US 2016/0085615).
Regarding claim 1: Mitra discloses an apparatus for wireless communications at a receiver device, comprising:
a memory comprising instructions (see memory 1206 of Figure 12 and 13:7-33, for example); and
one or more processors configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to (see processor 1204 of Figure 12 and 13:7-33, for example):
receive an initial transmission (disclosed throughout; see 1:43-67 and 5:37-48, for example, which discloses a receiver receiving signals and utilizing LLRs as part of an FEC decoding process);
obtain log likelihood ratios (LLRs) for the packets (disclosed throughout; see LLR generator 392 of Figure 3 and step 610 of Figure 6, for example);
compand each LLR to generate at least one bit sign of each LLR (disclosed throughout; see LLR compressor 394 and step 620 of Figure 6, for example; the compressor (compander) generates at least one sign bit of each LLR (see Sb0 (301), Sb1 (311), Sb2 (321), and Sb3 (331)); and
jointly decompand each subset of companded LLRs that are associated with a same modulation symbol based on single bit signs corresponding to the subset of companded LLRs (disclosed throughout; see LLR de-compressor 398 and step 720 of Figure 7, for example; each subset of companded/compressed LLRs associated with a same modulation symbol; the subset includes either two bits from the same symbol (i.e. b0/b1) or the larger subset of the four bits from the same symbol (i.e. b0/b1/b2/b3); as indicated in Figure 3, these subsets are decompanded/decompressed using single bit signs (Sb0 (301), Sb1 (311), Sb2 (321), and Sb3 (331)) corresponding to the subset of companded/compressed LLRs; see also 8:55-59, for example – “From the piecewise linear relationship between the b0 and bl bit demonstrated by the graph 402, an LLR decompressor may derive the magnitude of the LLR for the bl bit from the magnitude of the LLR of the b0 bit and the sign of the LLRs of the b0 and bl bits”).
Mitra further discloses that the LLR compression/decompression scheme can be used as part of a HARQ procedure (see 3:55-62 and 5:28-31, for example). Mitra is silent regarding the limitation that of receive packets comprising an initial transmission and at least one hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) retransmission. However, Nekuii discloses a similar system which utilizes LLRs as part of a HARQ retransmission protocol. Further, as indicated in Figure 4 and [0055]-[0063], the LLR processing is utilized on received initial and retransmission packets. For example, compressed LLR values for an “original bit stream” are stored in LLR storage (see [0062]) and later combined with a “retransmitted data stream” (see [0063] – “the decompressed original data stream and retransmitted data are combined or added to correct the error”). Nekuii further explicitly discloses that the received data is part of a “packet stream” ([0083], for example). To the extent that Mitra does not explicitly disclose both an initial transmission and a HARQ retransmission, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In particular, it would have been obvious to utilize the LLR compression and decompression to recombine an original transmission and a retransmission as suggested by Nekuii. The rationale for doing so would have been to efficiently correct any transmission errors detected in the original transmission as suggested by Nekuii.
Regarding claim 19: Mitra discloses a method for wireless communications at a receiver device, comprising:
receiving an initial transmission (disclosed throughout; see 1:43-67 and 5:37-48, for example, which discloses a receiver receiving signals and utilizing LLRs as part of an FEC decoding process);
obtaining log likelihood ratios (LLRs) for the packets (disclosed throughout; see LLR generator 392 of Figure 3 and step 610 of Figure 6, for example);
companding each LLR to generate at least one bit sign of each LLR (disclosed throughout; see LLR compressor 394 and step 620 of Figure 6, for example; the compressor (compander) generates at least one sign bit of each LLR (see Sb0 (301), Sb1 (311), Sb2 (321), and Sb3 (331)); and
jointly decompanding each subset of companded LLRs that are associated with a same modulation symbol based on single bit signs corresponding to the subset of companded LLRs (disclosed throughout; see LLR de-compressor 398 and step 720 of Figure 7, for example; each subset of companded/compressed LLRs associated with a same modulation symbol; the subset includes either two bits from the same symbol (i.e. b0/b1) or the larger subset of the four bits from the same symbol (i.e. b0/b1/b2/b3); as indicated in Figure 3, these subsets are decompanded/decompressed using single bit signs (Sb0 (301), Sb1 (311), Sb2 (321), and Sb3 (331)) corresponding to the subset of companded/compressed LLRs; see also 8:55-59, for example – “From the piecewise linear relationship between the b0 and bl bit demonstrated by the graph 402, an LLR decompressor may derive the magnitude of the LLR for the bl bit from the magnitude of the LLR of the b0 bit and the sign of the LLRs of the b0 and bl bits”).
Mitra further discloses that the LLR compression/decompression scheme can be used as part of a HARQ procedure (see 3:55-62 and 5:28-31, for example). Mitra is silent regarding the limitation that of receiving packets comprising an initial transmission and at least one hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) retransmission. However, Nekuii discloses a similar system which utilizes LLRs as part of a HARQ retransmission protocol. Further, as indicated in Figure 4 and [0055]-[0063], the LLR processing is utilized on received initial and retransmission packets. For example, compressed LLR values for an “original bit stream” are stored in LLR storage (see [0062]) and later combined with a “retransmitted data stream” (see [0063] – “the decompressed original data stream and retransmitted data are combined or added to correct the error”). Nekuii further explicitly discloses that the received data is part of a “packet stream” ([0083], for example). To the extent that Mitra does not explicitly disclose both an initial transmission and a HARQ retransmission, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In particular, it would have been obvious to utilize the LLR compression and decompression to recombine an original transmission and a retransmission as suggested by Nekuii. The rationale for doing so would have been to efficiently correct any transmission errors detected in the original transmission as suggested by Nekuii.
Regarding claim 20: Mitra discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a receiver device, cause the receiver device to perform a method of wireless communications, comprising (see memory 1206 and processor 1204 of Figure 12 and 13:7-33, for example):
receiving an initial transmission (disclosed throughout; see 1:43-67 and 5:37-48, for example, which discloses a receiver receiving signals and utilizing LLRs as part of an FEC decoding process);
obtaining log likelihood ratios (LLRs) for the packets (disclosed throughout; see LLR generator 392 of Figure 3 and step 610 of Figure 6, for example);
companding each LLR to generate at least one bit sign of each LLR (disclosed throughout; see LLR compressor 394 and step 620 of Figure 6, for example; the compressor (compander) generates at least one sign bit of each LLR (see Sb0 (301), Sb1 (311), Sb2 (321), and Sb3 (331)); and
jointly decompanding each subset of companded LLRs that are associated with a same modulation symbol based on single bit signs corresponding to the subset of companded LLRs (disclosed throughout; see LLR de-compressor 398 and step 720 of Figure 7, for example; each subset of companded/compressed LLRs associated with a same modulation symbol; the subset includes either two bits from the same symbol (i.e. b0/b1) or the larger subset of the four bits from the same symbol (i.e. b0/b1/b2/b3); as indicated in Figure 3, these subsets are decompanded/decompressed using single bit signs (Sb0 (301), Sb1 (311), Sb2 (321), and Sb3 (331)) corresponding to the subset of companded/compressed LLRs; see also 8:55-59, for example – “From the piecewise linear relationship between the b0 and bl bit demonstrated by the graph 402, an LLR decompressor may derive the magnitude of the LLR for the bl bit from the magnitude of the LLR of the b0 bit and the sign of the LLRs of the b0 and bl bits”).
Mitra further discloses that the LLR compression/decompression scheme can be used as part of a HARQ procedure (see 3:55-62 and 5:28-31, for example). Mitra is silent regarding the limitation that of receiving packets comprising an initial transmission and at least one hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) retransmission. However, Nekuii discloses a similar system which utilizes LLRs as part of a HARQ retransmission protocol. Further, as indicated in Figure 4 and [0055]-[0063], the LLR processing is utilized on received initial and retransmission packets. For example, compressed LLR values for an “original bit stream” are stored in LLR storage (see [0062]) and later combined with a “retransmitted data stream” (see [0063] – “the decompressed original data stream and retransmitted data are combined or added to correct the error”). Nekuii further explicitly discloses that the received data is part of a “packet stream” ([0083], for example). To the extent that Mitra does not explicitly disclose both an initial transmission and a HARQ retransmission, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In particular, it would have been obvious to utilize the LLR compression and decompression to recombine an original transmission and a retransmission as suggested by Nekuii. The rationale for doing so would have been to efficiently correct any transmission errors detected in the original transmission as suggested by Nekuii.
Regarding claim 2: Mitra, modified, discloses the limitation of the jointly decompand comprises reconstructing the subset of companded LLRs associated with the same modulation symbol jointly based on the single bit signs corresponding to the subset of companded LLRs (disclosed throughout; see LLR de-compressor 398 and step 720 of Figure 7, for example; each subset of companded/compressed LLRs associated with a same modulation symbol; the subset includes either two bits from the same symbol (i.e. b0/b1) or the larger subset of the four bits from the same symbol (i.e. b0/b1/b2/b3); as indicated in Figure 3, these subsets are decompanded/decompressed using single bit signs (Sb0 (301), Sb1 (311), Sb2 (321), and Sb3 (331)) corresponding to the subset of companded/compressed LLRs; see also 8:55-59, for example – “From the piecewise linear relationship between the b0 and bl bit demonstrated by the graph 402, an LLR decompressor may derive the magnitude of the LLR for the bl bit from the magnitude of the LLR of the b0 bit and the sign of the LLRs of the b0 and bl bits”).
Regarding claim 3: Mitra, modified, discloses the limitations that different decompanding schemes are associated with different modulation orders; the different decompanding schemes comprise at least a first decompanding scheme and a second decompanding scheme; and the different modulation orders comprise at least a first modulation order and a second modulation order (disclosed throughout; see 9:23-27, which indicates that “While FIGS. 4D and 5D demonstrate how the piecewise relationship of bits in a 16 QAM symbol can be exploited to achieve LLR compression, it should be appreciated that those LLR compression techniques are applicable to any square QAM modulation symbol”; see also 7:37-41, which indicates “While the example in FIG. 3 is an embodiment LLR compression technique being applied to a 16-QAM symbol, it should be appreciated that embodiment LLR compression techniques can be applied to any square QAM symbol, e.g., 64-QAM, etc.”; the different modulation orders (16-QAM and 64-QAM, for example) utilize different decompanding schemes, including at least a different sized subset of bits and a different sized LLR per bit; see also 12:51-59, for example).
Regarding claim 4: Mitra, modified, discloses the limitations that the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to jointly decompand, using the first decompanding scheme, a first set of companded LLRs associated with the first modulation order, based on single bit signs corresponding to the first set of companded LLRs (disclosed throughout; as indicated above, the first modulation order can be 16-QAM, for example; the first decompanding/decompressing scheme (illustrated in Figure 3, for example), is used to jointly decompand a first set of companded LLRs based on the single bit signs corresponding to the first set of companded LLRs).
Regarding claim 5: Mitra, modified, discloses the limitations that the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to jointly decompand, using the second decompanding scheme, a second set of companded LLRs associated with the second modulation order, based on single bit signs corresponding to the second set of companded LLRs (disclosed throughout; as indicated above, the first modulation order can be 64-QAM, for example; the first decompanding/decompressing scheme (similar to that illustrated in Figure 3, for example, but modified to apply to the 64-QAM modulation scheme), is used to jointly decompand a first set of companded LLRs based on the single bit signs corresponding to the first set of companded LLRs).
Regarding claim 6: Mitra, modified, discloses the limitations that the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to store the at least one bit sign corresponding to the each LLR in one or more buffers of the receiver device (disclosed throughout; see step 630 of Figure 6, for example).
Regarding claim 18: Mitra, modified, discloses the limitations that the initial transmission is associated with a first set of modulation symbols; and each HARQ retransmission is associated with the same first set of modulation symbols (as indicated in at least [0057], the receiver “requests another retransmission of the same data”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra et al (US 9,503,305) in view of Nekuii (US 2016/0085615) in view of Zhu (US 2025/0287417).
Regarding claim 17: Mitra, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above. Mitra, modified, does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 17 that the initial transmission is associated with a first set of modulation symbols; each HARQ retransmission is associated with a second set of modulation symbols; and the second set of modulation symbols is different from the first set of modulation symbols. However, Zhu discloses that a first transmission may utilize first modulation (resulting in a first set of modulation symbols) and a retransmission may utilize a different second modulation (resulting in a second/different set of modulation symbols). For example, see [0115], which indicates “The retransmission may use the same transmission parameter(s) (such as modulation and coding scheme) as the initial transmission, or the retransmission may different transmission parameters (such as modulation and coding schemes)”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mitra, modified, such that the retransmission may be transmitted using a same or different modulation scheme as suggested by Zhu. The rationale for doing so would have been to improve the likelihood of a successful retransmission by using a different modulation scheme for retransmission when the initial transmission has errors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert C Scheibel whose telephone number is (571)272-3169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Hassan A Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
Robert C. Scheibel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 August 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights