DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Request for Continued Examination
3. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 05/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s argument filed on 05/22/2026 with respect claims 1, 8, and 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant contends that the office action fails to teach or suggest the limitation of "computing... a quantity of data blocks of the first parity group," as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Vayanos et al. (U.S. PN: US 20050147040 A1) in paragraphs [0135], [0141], [0163], and [0196] teaches the feature of "computing... a quantity of data blocks of the first parity group." For example, the parity rows generated by the outer encoder can be added to the Encoder Packet (EP), and placed in a transmission buffer as a group of inner blocks. Each inner block has information added to it to produce a Protocol Data Unit (PDU). The group of PDUs can then be transmitted. See paragraph [0135].An outer code block 95 can be represented in the form of a matrix that includes k Protocol Data Units 91 and N-k parity rows 93. In outer block coding, data can be assembled into large encoder packet or information block 91 by organizing user data into k payload rows by segmenting, concatenating, and padding data (including insertion of over head into inner blocks), and then encoding the resulting information block 91 to generate N-k parity rows 93 that can be added to the information block 91 to produce an outer code block 95. The parity blocks 93 add redundancy information to the information block 91. The individual rows of the outer code block can then eventually be transmitted over single or multiple Transmission Timing Intervals (TTIs). Redundancy information for the set of Protocol Data Units (PDUs) can allow the original information to be reconstructed even if some of the PDUs are lost during transmission. See paragraph [0141].
The k PDU blocks can then be run through the outer encoder 416 which performs, Reed-Solomon (RS) encoding. The outer encoder 416 encodes the data in the Encoder Packet (EP) matrix by generating and appending redundancy or parity information to the Encoder Packet (EP) matrix to create an outer code block. In an embodiment, the outer-code can be assumed to be an (n, k) erasure-decoding block code and the outer encoder generates n-k parity blocks. The encoder performs the encoding on k rows of information of equal length and delivers to the lower sub-layer n Protocol Data Units (PDUs) of that same size. The first k blocks are identical to the ones it receives, and the following n-k blocks correspond to the parity information. See paragraph [0163].
The encoder uses the EP to generate redundancy or parity information. At step 240, an encoder encodes the intermediate packet matrix 205 encoded by adding outer parity blocks 214 to generate an outer code block 213 that is 16 blocks in length. The encoder extracts 8 bits of data from each column of each block to create resulting data 210. A Reed-Solomon (RS) encoder encodes the resulting data 210 to obtain four rows of redundancy or parity information 212. The parity information 212 can be used to generate outer parity blocks 214 that can be appended to the EP matrix 205 to generate the 16 block outer code block 213. See paragraph [0196].
Also, the applicant contends that the office action fails to teach or suggest the limitation of "wherein the quantity of data blocks of the first parity group is non-deterministic to the receiver prior to receiving the second block," as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 by arguing that O'Brien et al. (US 20190363981 A1) does not teach a mathematical parity group, nor does it contain a "quantity of data blocks" upon which forward error correction parity operations are performed.
The Examiner directs the applicant’s attention that claims 1, 8, and 15 are silent regarding to mathematical parity group contain quantity of data blocks upon which forward error correction parity operations are performed. No forward error correction parity operations have been performed in order to compute quantity of data blocks. Emphasis added. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that O'Brien et al. (US 20190363981 A1) in paragraphs [0031]-[0032], [0065], and [0070] teaches the such limitation. For example, the duration of the guard preamble may be unconstrained in the protocol. The duration of the guard preamble can be variable. Moreover, prior to processing a multi-packet transmission, the duration of the guard preamble may be unknown to a receiving device arranged to receive and process the multi-packet transmission. Accordingly, the guard preamble can have an indeterminate duration. The indeterminate duration or length can be referred to an undefined length or duration as this length can be unconstrained by a protocol and also unknown to a receiving device prior to processing a multi-packet transmission. The length of different guard preambles can be variable. A receive device can be arranged to process a guard preamble having a variety of different lengths. With unconstrained length guard preambles, different guard preambles can have different durations. See paragraph [0031].
As discussed above, in frequency-shift keying (FSK) systems, digital information can be modulated by dynamically adjusting frequency of carrier. A receive device can receive an FSK signal that includes packets and process the packets. The FSK signal can include multiple packets with a guard preamble between successive packets. The guard preamble can have a length that is undefined by a protocol. The packets can each include a preamble and a synchronization header. There are technical challenged associated with detecting the synchronization header when there is a guard preamble of undefined length between successive packets. See paragraph [0032].Other recoverable failure cases include a variety of failure scenarios in a first packet, any type of failure in a second or subsequent packet, false signal detects, and the like. Failure scenarios on the first packet include late signal-detection, AGC errors, AFC measurement and/or correction errors, and the like. For these cases, the first packet will likely be missed, but all subsequent packets can be recoverable. Such recoveries can be similar to the recovery described with reference to FIG. 5. For failures in a second or subsequent packet, the failed packet will likely be lost, but all other packets can be recoverable. Using the technology described herein, a relatively quick decision can be made on whether the signal detect was false and the receiver state machine can speedily prepare and wait for the next signal detect event. This can provide a speedy recovery from false signal detects. See paragraph [0065].
FIG. 7 is a schematic diagram of a transmit signal chain 40 for generating a radio frequency signal to be received by any suitable receiver discussed herein. The transmit signal chain 40 can have enhanced flexibility in generating a multi-packet transmission with guard preambles between successive packets for communicating with receivers discussed herein. For instance, the transmit signal chain 40 can generate a multi-packet transmission in which the guard preamble can have a length that is unknown to a paired receiving device prior to processing the multi-packet transmission. In some instances, a transceiver device includes the transmit signal chain 40 and a receiver implemented in accordance with any suitable principles and advantages discussed herein. In the transmit signal chain 40, the transmitter takes on the form of a frequency synthesizer with digital control ports allowing instantaneous frequency modulation. Frequency control words can be received from a digital baseband processor. Carrier frequency adjustment and modulation are performed via the frequency synthesizer. Output signal generation and power control can be performed via the power amplifier. See paragraph [0070].
As been described above, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the multi-packet protocol header detection can include a parity group since have ability to detect or/and correct the errors in the data packets. See paragraph [0061] of O’Brien states that “--- FIG. 5 illustrates timing of signals in the receiver control circuit 20 for receiving 3 packets in which there is a synchronization failure on the first packet. This timing diagram illustrates how the receiver system 10 of FIG. 3 can recover relatively quickly from a synchronization error failure and properly detect the next packet.” And paragraph [0065] stats that “--- any type of failure in a second or subsequent packet, false signal detects, and the like. Failure scenarios on the first packet include late signal-detection, AGC errors, AFC measurement and/or correction errors, and the like.” Emphasis added.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims recite “a quantity of data blocks.” The term “quantity” does not clearly been supported in the specification. Paragraph [0063] of the applicant’s specification states that “--- the number of packets in parity groups may also be non-deterministic due to the dynamic nature of the flexible matrix. Some embodiments of the present disclosure relate to a FEC technique in which a length of a parity group (i.e., the number of packets in the parity group) can be quickly determined by examining a parity tag (e.g., included in a packet header) associated with a single packet in a subsequent parity group ---.” Therefore, the Examiner suggests that the term “a quantity of data blocks” be changed to “a number of packets of the first parity group” or “a length of the first parity group” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims (1, 8, and 15) recites “computing a set of parity blocks by performing parity operations on the set of data blocks, each of the set of data blocks belonging to one of a set of parity groups including a first parity group and a second parity group; determining, based on a parity tag for the second block, a unique positional identifier for the second block and a parity position number for the second block; computing, based on the unique positional identifier for the second block and the parity position number for the second block, a quantity of data blocks of the first parity group, wherein the quantity of data blocks of the first parity group is non-deterministic to the receiver prior to receiving the second block; and determining that a missing block from the first parity group has not been received based on the quantity of data blocks of the first parity group.”
This limitations of “computing a set of parity blocks by performing parity operations on the set of data blocks, each of the set of data blocks belonging to one of a set of parity groups including a first parity group and a second parity group; determining, based on a parity tag for the second block, a unique positional identifier for the second block and a parity position number for the second block; computing, based on the unique positional identifier for the second block and the parity position number for the second block, a quantity of data blocks of the first parity group, wherein the quantity of data blocks of the first parity group is non-deterministic to the receiver prior to receiving the second block; and determining that a missing block from the first parity group has not been received based on the quantity of data blocks of the first parity group,” as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation , covers a mathematical relationship of the mathematical concept grouping. The terms of the claims are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls into the mathematical relationship as part of the mathematical grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The additional limitations of “receiving---a set of data blocks; generating a set of parity tags for the set of data blocks, each of the set of parity tags including a unique positional identifier and a parity position number for a respective one of the set of data blocks; transmitting the set of data blocks, the set of parity blocks, and the set of parity tags over a wireless channel--; receiving a subset of the set of data blocks and the set of parity blocks---, the subset including a first block from the first parity group and a second block from the second parity group, the second block having been transmitted after the first block” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are generic components for performing the abstract idea and does not add any meaningful limits to the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are tools for performing the abstract idea and fails to integrate the use of the abstract idea into a practical application thereby improving technology or a computer.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements “transmitter; receiver; and “one or more processors” are generic components that are well understood, routine and conventional and do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application rather they are mere instructions for performing the mathematical relationship of the mathematical concept grouping. The dependent claims do not add any meaningful limits to the abstract idea to improve the technology or the computer component and fails to add significantly more than the abstracts idea. Therefore, the dependent claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Vayanos et al. (U.S. PN: US 20050147040 A1) "herein after as Vayanos" in view of Melliar-Smith et al. (US 8,473,833 B2) "herein after as Melliar-Smith" in further view of O'Brien et al. (US 20190363981 A1) “herein after as O'Brien.”
As per claims 1, 8, and 15: Vayanos substantially teaches or discloses a method comprising: receiving, at a transmitter, a set of data blocks (see paragraph [0112], herein Data packets (RLC SDUs) received from higher layers via AM-SAP can be segmented and/or concatenated 514 to Protocol Data Units (PDU) of a fixed length); computing a set of parity blocks by performing parity operations on a set of data blocks (see paragraph [0134], herein the Encoder Packet (EP) can then be passed through an outer-code encoder to generate the parity rows), each of the set of data blocks belonging to one of a set of parity groups including a first parity group and a second parity group (see Fig. 8, N-k parity rows 93, and 10B); generating a set of parity tags for the set of data blocks, each of the set of parity tags including a unique positional identifier and a parity position number for a respective one of the set of data blocks (see paragraph [0156], herein each outer block 95 includes a plurality of inner blocks 91, 93. Identifying the sequence of inner blocks and their position relative to encoder packets can allow each available inner block to be placed in the correct position so that outer-decoding can be done correctly. In one embodiment, each inner block includes a header 94 that identifies the inner block by an inner block number m and an outer block number n); transmitting the set of data blocks, the set of parity blocks, and the set of parity tags over the wireless channel from a transmitter to a receiver (see paragraph [0158], herein a transmit buffer 420 transmits the PDUs over the logical channels 406, and a scheduling unit 422., and Fig. 11 step 408); receiving a subset of the set of data blocks and the set of parity blocks at the receiver, the subset including a first block from the first parity group and a second block from the second parity group, the second block having been transmitted after the first block (see paragraph [0175], herein the receive buffer 438 may accumulate PDUs until the entire Encoder Packet (EP) is received, and Fig. 11 step 438); determining, based on a parity tag for the second block, a unique positional identifier for the second block and a parity position number for the second block (see paragraph [0156], herein each inner block includes a header 94 that identifies the inner block by an inner block number m and an outer block number n, --- The receiving UE should be able to determine the order of the inner blocks, even if some inner blocks are lost. If the UE loses more inner blocks than can be identified by the whole sequence number space) computing, based on the unique positional identifier for the second block and the parity position number for the second block, a quantity of data blocks of the first parity group (see paragraph [0135] herein, the parity rows generated by the outer encoder can be added to the Encoder Packet (EP), and placed in a transmission buffer as a group of inner blocks, and paragraphs [0142], [0163], & [0196]). Vayanos does not explicitly teach determining that a missing block from the first parity group has not been received based on the quantity of data blocks of the first parity group. However, Melliar-Smith in the same the field of endeavor teaches determining that a missing block from the first parity group has not been received based on the quantity of data blocks of the first parity group (see column 9, lines 6-11, herein To provide protection of the parity packets at the transmitter or at the receiver, the algorithm calculates a single parity packet for all three sets of parity packets (rows, columns and diagonals). If a parity packet for a row, column or diagonal is missing, the receiver using the single parity packet to recover the missing parity packet). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Vayanos with the teachings of Melliar-Smith by determining that a missing block from the first parity group has not been received based on the quantity of data blocks of the first parity group. This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the determining that a missing block from the first parity group has not been received based on the quantity of data blocks of the first parity group would have mitigated the unreliability of the communication network and to improve the quality of the delivered image (see column 2, lines 20-21 of Melliar-Smith). Vayanos-Melliar-Smith as combined teaches all the subject matter in claims 1, 8, and 15 except wherein the quantity of data blocks of the first parity group is non-deterministic to the receiver prior to receiving the second block. However, O'Brien in the same the field of endeavor teaches wherein the quantity of data blocks of the first parity group is non-deterministic to the receiver prior to receiving the second block (see paragraph [0031], herein the indeterminate duration or length can be referred to an undefined length or duration as this length can be unconstrained by a protocol and also unknown to a receiving device prior to processing a multi-packet transmission. The length of different guard preambles can be variable; and paragraph [0070], herein the transmit signal chain 40 can generate a multi-packet transmission in which the guard preamble can have a length that is unknown to a paired receiving device prior to processing the multi-packet transmission; and paragraph [0077], herein the receiver 85 can receive a FSK signal that includes a multiple packets with a guard preamble of indeterminate length between successive packets in accordance with any suitable principles). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the commination system of Vayanos-Melliar-Smith as combined with the teachings of O'Brien by including the quantity of data blocks of the first parity group is non-deterministic to the receiver prior to receiving the second block. This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the wherein the quantity of data blocks of the first parity group is non-deterministic to the receiver prior to receiving the second block would have the communication system performance.
As per claims 2, 9, and 16: Melliar-Smith teaches that wherein the missing block from the first parity group is a parity block from the set of parity blocks, and wherein the method further comprises: recovering the parity block by performing parity operations on the first parity group (see column 9, lines 6-10, herein To provide protection of the parity packets at the transmitter or at the receiver, the algorithm calculates a single parity packet for all three sets of parity packets (rows, columns and diagonals). If a parity packet for a row, column or diagonal is missing, the receiver using the single parity packet to recover the missing parity packet).
As per claims 3, 10, and 17: Vayanos teaches that wherein the missing block from the first parity group is a data block from the set of data blocks, and wherein the method further comprises: recovering the data block by performing parity operations on the first parity group (see paragraph [0178], herein the data can then be passed to the outer-decoding function 434 to recover missing information. The outer decoder 434 receives the Encoder Packet (EP), and, if necessary, Reed-Solomon (RS) decodes the Encoder Packet (EP) by using the parity information to regenerate any erroneous or missing rows. For example, if all k Protocol Data Units (PDUs) containing information are not received correctly, or fewer than k out of n PDUs are not received correctly, then the Protocol Data Units (PDUs), up to the size of the parity PDUs, outer decoding can then be performed to recover the missing information PDUs, and paragraph [0233], herein The Forward Error Correction (FEC) can be performed so that any blocks lost during the transition can be recovered).
As per claims 4, 11, and 18: Vayanos teaches that wherein the quantity of data blocks of the first parity group is computed further based on a unique positional identifier for the first block and a parity position number for the first block determined based on a parity tag for the first block (see paragraph [0156], herein The FECc mode can be used on common or Point-to-Multipoint (PTM) logical channels to construct outer case blocks 95 by adding parity rows or blocks 93 to the MBMS payload data 91. Each outer block 95 includes a plurality of inner blocks 91, 93. Identifying the sequence of inner blocks and their position relative to encoder packets can allow each available inner block to be placed in the correct position so that outer-decoding can be done correctly, and paragraph [0194]).
As per claims 5, 12, and 19: Vayanos teaches that wherein the set of data blocks include user data received over a terrestrial network (see paragraph [0039], herein A mobile station may be mobile or stationary, and can generally include any communicator, data device or terminal that communicates through a wireless channel or through a wired channel, for example, using fiber optic or coaxial cables; paragraph [0073]; and Fig. 11).
As per claims 6, 13, and 20: Melliar-Smith teaches that: in response to determining that the missing block from the first parity group has not been received, introducing latency at the receiver to wait for the missing block (see column 3, lines 39-43, herein For variable transmission rates, a receiver implementing forward error correction might wait an indeterminate amount of time for all parity packets for a data block to arrive before it can recover the missing packets, resulting in increased latency and jitter at the receiver).
As per claims 7 and 14: Vayanos teaches that wherein each of the set of parity tags further includes a parity group number that identifies one of the set of parity groups (see paragraph [0156], herein each inner block includes a header 94 that identifies the inner block by an inner block number m and an outer block number n. For example, outer block n includes a data portion 91 with m inner Multimedia Broadcast and Multicast Service (MBMS) payload blocks, and a redundancy portion 93 having M-(m+1) inner parity blocks).
Examiner Notes
8. When amending the claims, applicants are respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Prior Art
9. The prior art of record, considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, is listed in the attached PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSMAN ALSHACK whose telephone number is (571)272-2069. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:30 AM-5:00 PM EST, also please fax interview request to (571) 273- 2069. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ALBERT DECADY can be reached on 5712723819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OSMAN M ALSHACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights