DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abts (2025/0139439).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Abts discloses a method and a first wireless device in a wireless network (see training processing units (TPUs) 104 in figure 1), comprising: a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code (see figure 2), the processing system configured to cause the first wireless device in a wireless network to: receive a packet including one or more data fields and one or more overhead fields (see input packet 202 in figures 2 and 6); perform a first check on the packet, an outcome of the first check indicating an inconsistency in receiving the packet (see checksum evaluator 206 performs a cyclic redundancy check to compare a CRC checksum of input packet 202 to an expected CRC checksum in paragraph 0074; processor 204 determines whether input packet 202 is corrupted, faulty, or otherwise has an error using packet determination unit 208, based on an output of checksum evaluator 206 in paragraph 0075; cyclic redundancy check in step 404 and is packet corrupted in step 406 of figure 4); perform a second check on a modified version of the packet in accordance with the outcome of the first check, wherein the modified version of the packet replaces a received value of an overhead field of the one or more overhead fields with an expected value of the overhead field (see is packet corrected in step 412; if an input packet has a detected error, said input packet, at step 410, undergoes forward error correction (FEC) using a Reed-Solomon algorithm to correct simple bit flips. In at least one embodiment, at step 412, a processor determines whether said corrupted input packet was able to be corrected using FEC (e.g., using correction/replacement unit 210.) in paragraph 0085); and process the packet in accordance with an outcome of the second check (see output modified packet in step 416 and packet data replacement in step 414).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Abts discloses cause the first wireless device in a wireless network to: obtain the expected value of the overhead field from one or more additional packets received prior to the packet (see incoming packet 302 is a network packet (e.g., element 600 of FIG. 6) containing gradient data, and stored packet data 308 replaces gradient data with substitute data according to a replacement policy. In at least one embodiment, stored packet data 308 contains either a fixed value or a variable value as defined by a replacement policy in paragraph 0080).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Abts discloses to obtain the expected value, the processing system is configured to cause the first wireless device in a wireless network to: obtain a previous value of the overhead field via the one or more additional packets, wherein the expected value of the overhead field is the previous value (see this replacement policy is to replace packet data, data payload, gradient data, or other data according to a last-known good or uncorrupted data value from a previous packet or earlier transmission in paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 4, Abts discloses wherein the overhead field includes one or more of: a receiver medium access control (MAC) address, a transmitter MAC address, a basic service set (BSS) identifier, a destination address, a source address, padding, overhead introduced due to (Logical Link Control (LLC) Protocol Discrimination (LPD) header, an EtherType Protocol Discrimination (EPD), a frame control field, a length field, overhead introduced due to transmission control protocol (TPC), overhead introduced due to user datagram protocol (UDP), overhead introduced due to low latency low loss scalable throughput (L4S), overhead introduced due to internet protocol (IP), an application field, or a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (MPDU) delimiter (see packet header in figure 6).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Abts discloses to obtain the expected value, the processing system is configured to cause the first wireless device in a wireless network to: obtain one or more previous values of the overhead field via the one or more additional packets, wherein the expected value of the overhead field is in accordance with an expected change from the one or more previous values (see this acceptable substitute value this data substation operation replaces based on a predefined replacement policy. In at least one embodiment, this replacement policy is to replace packet data, data payload, gradient data, or other data with zeroes. In at least one embodiment, this replacement policy is to replace packet data, data payload, gradient data, or other data according to a mean and standard deviation of previously transmitted data. In at least one embodiment, this replacement policy is to replace packet data, data payload, gradient data, or other data according to a last-known good or uncorrupted data value from a previous packet or earlier transmission in paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 7, Abts discloses wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless device in a wireless network to: predict a value of the overhead field in accordance with the one or more previous values, wherein the expected value of the overhead field is the predicted value (see perform deep learning operations, including inference or prediction operations in paragraph 0411; this replacement policy is to replace packet data, data payload, gradient data, or other data according to a last-known good or uncorrupted data value from a previous packet or earlier transmission in paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 8, Abts discloses wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless device in a wireless network to: train a machine learning model to learn the predicted value of the overhead field; and obtain the predicted value of the overhead field in accordance with the machine learning model (see data center 1100 may include tools, services, software or other resources to train one or more machine learning models or predict or infer information using one or more machine learning models according to one or more embodiments described herein in paragraph 0140).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Abts discloses wherein one or more of the first check or the second check includes one or more of: a message integrity check in accordance with a message integrity check field of the packet or a cyclic redundancy check in accordance with a frame check sequence field of the packet (see a cyclic redundancy check (“CRC”) operation in paragraphs 0060, 0083).
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Abts discloses decoding the packet in accordance with a success of the second check (see encodes, decodes, and/or transcodes data in paragraph 0332); or requesting a retransmission of the packet in accordance with an outcome of the second check indicating an error in the packet (see data retransmission in paragraph 0089).
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.
Claim 6, 9-10, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abts in view of Yu et al (2023/0388165).
Regarding claim 6, Abts doesn't specifically disclose the overhead field includes one or more of: a legacy signal (L-SIG) length, a data rate, or a length. However, Yu discloses this feature (see The L-SIG includes a length field in paragraph 0085). The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Abts discloses all the claimed subject matter as described in previous paragraphs and further discloses other communication parameters (see parameters in paragraph 0108). Abts doesn't specifically disclose negotiating with another wireless device. However, Yu discloses negotiation (see negotiation in paragraphs 0133-0134). The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Yu discloses wherein the overhead field indicates a communication parameter of the one or more communication parameters, the overhead field including one or more of: a quality of service (QoS) control, a high throughout (HT) control, a Galois/Counter Mode with Cipher Block Chaining Message Authentication Code Protocol (GCMP), a length, a legacy signal (L-SIG) length, a data rate, a duration, or an identifier (ID) (see The L-SIG includes a length field in paragraph 0085).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3084. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at 571-270-3770. 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.
/BRIAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475