DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on 3 May 2024 and Information Disclosure Statements filed on 22 July 2025 and 6 November 2025.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 22 July 2025 and 6 November 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 12, lines 12-13 — “a quantity of duplication numbers of radio link control protocol unit” should include either the word “a” between “of” and “radio” or “unit” should be pluralized, “a quantity of duplication numbers of a radio link control protocol unit” will be assumed for further consideration;
Regarding Claim 14:
Lines 1-4 — “The wireless device of claim 1, wherein, to first set of one or more parameters, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to:” should read as “The wireless device of claim 1, wherein cause the first set of one or more parameters to comprise:”;
Lines 4, 8, 13, 17, 22, 24, 27, 29-30, and 32 each include a number disagreement error between a subject and its verb, e.g., “at least one first parameter that indicate a first threshold” of line 4 should read as “at least one or more first parameters that indicate a first threshold” or “at least one first parameter that indicates a first threshold” — all number disagreement errors throughout the claim must be corrected;
Regarding Claim 15:
Lines 1-3 — “The wireless device of claim 1, wherein, to second set of one or more parameters, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to:” should read as “The wireless device of claim 1, wherein cause a second set of one or more parameters to comprise:”; and
Lines 4, 6, 9, 12, 16, 18 each include a number disagreement error between a subject and its verb, e.g., “at least one first parameter that indicate a threshold” of line 4 should read as “at least one or more first parameters that indicate a threshold” or “at least one first parameter that indicates a threshold” — all number disagreement errors throughout the claim must be fixed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the wireless device of claim 1, wherein the wireless device is further caused to transmit the at least one data unit of a set of one or more protocol data units associated with the radio link control entity of the wireless device for which at least one hybrid automatic repeat request feedback is received. As claim 1 is currently written, there is no connection for receiving the claimed at least one hybrid automatic repeat request feedback for at least one data unit of a set of one or more protocol data units associated with the radio link control entity of the wireless device. Thus it is unknown whether the feedback is being received for a protocol data unit transmitted by the wireless device itself or by another device, because mere association with a radio link control entity of the wireless device does not necessarily define the relation between the protocol data unit for which feedback is received and the associated radio link control entity of the wireless device.
Regarding Claims 2-18, by virtue of depending on claim 1, claims 2-18 at least inherit the deficiencies of claim 1, and do not appear to cure the deficiency indicated above. Thus, claims 2-18 are at least rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, claim 2 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the wireless device obtaining the claimed "second set of one or more parameters" such that one or more operations may be performed based on an output of a radio link control hybrid automatic repeat request model as claimed.
Regarding Claim 14, claim 14 is additionally rejected, because the term “early” in claim 14 at lines 6, 10, 15, 19, 23, 25, and 32 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “early” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “early” is used in the claim to modify the term “retransmission.” What makes a retransmission “early” or not is not defined in the claims, the original disclosure of the instant application, or in the art. For instance, whether a retransmission is early may depend on whether enough time has passed since an initial transmission for the initial transmission to be received, for the initial transmission to be decoded, or for feedback associated with the initial transmission to be received or decoded. However, the original disclosure does not appear to disclose of any way for defining a retransmission as “early.” Determining the scope of an “early retransmission” is central to determining the scope of claim 14 for at least nine of the ten alternatively claimed limitations. Therefore, prior art cannot be compared to claim 14, because the scope of “early” cannot be determined and is too central of an issue for determining the scope of claim 14 for applicant’s intention for the scope to be assumed for further consideration.
Regarding Claims 19-20, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 19-20 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 1, and are rejected under the same reasoning, although claim 19 is missing an essential step of transmitting the protocol data unit for which feedback is received, but the reasoning is the same as provided above regarding claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claims upon which they depend, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend.
Regarding Claim 14: lines 11-12 and lines 20-21 — “in response to an absence of the at least one hybrid automatic repeat request feedback for the at least one protocol data unit” contradicts “receive at least one hybrid automatic repeat request feedback for at least one protocol data unit” as required in claim 1, upon which claim 14 depends.
Regarding Claim 18, “wherein the one or more operations are preformed irrespective of the disabled model” (emphasis added) contradicts “wherein the one or more operations be performed further based at least in part on the disabled model” of claim 16, upon which claim 18 depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3-4, 8-9, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chun et al. (WO 2025/229178, hereinafter Chun).
Regarding Claim 1, Chun discloses a wireless device, comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (Fig. 15, ¶¶ 243 and 249 disclose a wireless device implementing the disclosed embodiments of Chun as including memory); 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 (Id. — a processing system of the wireless device is associated with the memory for implementing the disclosed embodiments):
receive control signaling (¶ 468 discloses a sender (e.g., UE, wireless device) receiving, from a base station, one or more configuration parameters) that indicates a configuration (Id.) comprising a first set of one or more parameters (Id.) for hybrid automatic repeat request (Id. further disclosing the parameter(s) indicating that the sender retransmits an RLC SDU if the RLC SDU becomes delay-critical; and Fig. 28 and ¶ 561 disclose use of functionality of retransmission of a delay critical RLC SDU being configured per RLC entity of the sender; and ¶ 566 discloses retransmission as based on a notification indicating a HARQ transmission failure associated with a first RLC SDU) associated with a radio link control entity of the wireless device (¶ 468; and Fig. 19 and ¶ 455-456 disclose a (transmitting) RLC entity of the sender as receiving the RLC SDU from a transmitting PDCP entity of the sender, the RLC entity associating the RLC SDU with a sequency number (SN); and ¶ 457 discloses the sender sending the RLC SDU);
receive at least one hybrid automatic repeat request feedback for at least one protocol data unit of a set of one or more protocol data units associated with the radio link control entity of the wireless device (Fig. 28 and ¶ 566 discloses a sender receiving a notification indicating HARQ transmission failure associated with the RLC SDU); and
perform one or more operations based at least in part on the at least one hybrid automatic repeat request feedback and in accordance with the first set of one or more parameters for hybrid automatic repeat request (), wherein the one or more operations include a discard of the at least one protocol data unit or a retransmission of the at least one protocol data unit (¶ 451 discloses "delay critical" as defined by an amount of time remaining for a packet to be communicated before it is discarded (i.e., dropped) according to a delay budget; ¶¶ 473-474 disclose the sender retransmitting the RLC SDU according to remaining time before discard or packet delay budget — thus at least implying that the UE either retransmits or discards an RLC SDU according to a packet delay budget or discard timer; ¶¶ 566-567 disclose the RLC entity as configured with retransmission of a (non-)delay critical because of a notification indicating HARQ transmission failure — thus, at least implying that a UE is configured for HARQ retransmission for an RLC entity of the UE and determines whether to retransmit or discard an RLC SDU based on a received notification of HARQ transmission failure (i.e., a Non-Acknowledgment, NACK) and a discard timer).
Regarding Claim 3, Chun discloses 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:
retransmit the at least one protocol data unit based at least in part on the at least one hybrid automatic repeat request feedback and in accordance with the first set of one or more parameters (Fig. 28 and ¶ 566 disclose the first RLC entity determining to retransmit the first RLC SDU as a delay critical RLC SDU due to the RLC entity being configured with retransmission of the delay critical RLC SDU and receiving notification indicating HARQ transmission failure associated with the first RLC SDU),
wherein the at least one protocol data unit comprise one or more of a radio link control service data unit, a radio link control protocol data unit, or a medium access control protocol data unit (Id. further discloses a MAC PDU).
Regarding Claim 4, Chun discloses the wireless device of claim 3, wherein a radio link control header of the at least one protocol data unit indicates a retransmission of one or more of the radio link control service data unit or the radio link control protocol data unit (Fig. 28 and ¶ 566 disclose the first RLC entity determining to retransmit the first RLC SDU as a delay critical RLC SDU due to the RLC entity being configured with retransmission of the delay critical RLC SDU and receiving notification indicating HARQ transmission failure associated with the first RLC SDU).
Regarding Claim 8, Chun discloses 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:
obtain a second set of one or more parameters for hybrid automatic repeat request associated with the radio link control entity of the wireless device (¶ 468 discloses a sender (e.g., UE, wireless device) receiving, from a base station, one or more configuration parameters indicating that the sender retransmits an RLC SDU if the RLC SDU becomes delay-critical; and Fig. 28 and ¶ 561 disclose use of functionality of retransmission of a delay critical RLC SDU being configured per RLC entity of the sender; and ¶ 566 discloses retransmission as based on a notification indicating a HARQ transmission failure associated with a first RLC SDU),
wherein the one or more operations be performed further based at least in part on the second set of one or more parameters a wireless device, comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (Fig. 15 and ¶ 249 disclose the memory as storing computer program instructions for implementing the disclosed embodiments); 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 (Id. — the processing system is associated with the memory):
receive control signaling (¶ 468 discloses a sender (e.g., UE, wireless device) receiving, from a base station, one or more configuration parameters) that indicates a configuration (Id.) comprising a first set of one or more parameters (Id.) for hybrid automatic repeat request (Id. further disclosing the parameter(s) indicating that the sender retransmits an RLC SDU if the RLC SDU becomes delay-critical; and Fig. 28 and ¶ 561 disclose use of functionality of retransmission of a delay critical RLC SDU being configured per RLC entity of the sender; and ¶ 566 discloses retransmission as based on a notification indicating a HARQ transmission failure associated with a first RLC SDU) associated with a radio link control entity of the wireless device (¶ 468; and Fig. 19 and ¶ 455-456 disclose a (transmitting) RLC entity of the sender as receiving the RLC SDU from a transmitting PDCP entity of the sender, the RLC entity associating the RLC SDU with a sequency number (SN); and ¶ 457 discloses the sender sending the RLC SDU);
receive at least one hybrid automatic repeat request feedback for at least one protocol data unit of a set of one or more protocol data units associated with the radio link control entity of the wireless device (Fig. 28 and ¶ 566 discloses a sender receiving a notification indicating HARQ transmission failure associated with the RLC SDU); and
perform one or more operations based at least in part on the at least one hybrid automatic repeat request feedback and in accordance with the first set of one or more parameters for hybrid automatic repeat request, wherein the one or more operations include a discard of the at least one protocol data unit or a retransmission of the at least one protocol data unit (¶ 451 discloses "delay critical" as defined by an amount of time remaining for a packet to be communicated before it is discarded (i.e., dropped) according to a delay budget; ¶¶ 473-474 disclose the sender retransmitting the RLC SDU according to remaining time before discard or packet delay budget — thus at least implying that the UE either retransmits or discards an RLC SDU according to a packet delay budget or discard timer; ¶¶ 566-567 disclose the RLC entity as configured with retransmission of a (non-)delay critical because of a notification indicating HARQ transmission failure — thus, at least implying that a UE is configured for HARQ retransmission for an RLC entity of the UE and determines whether to retransmit or discard an RLC SDU based on a received notification of HARQ transmission failure (i.e., a Non-Acknowledgment, NACK) and a discard timer).
Regarding Claim 9, Chun discloses the wireless device of claim 8, wherein at least one parameter of the second set of one or more parameters comprises a packet delay budget, and wherein the one or more operations are performed further based at least in part on that the packet delay budget satisfies or predicted to satisfy a threshold value (¶ 577 discloses the RLC entity prioritizing transmission of an RLC control PDU over non-RLC control PDUs such as by prioritizing transmission of 1st data from a 1st data buffer over transmission of 2nd data from a 2nd data buffer and/or 3rd data from a 3rd data buffer, which may help delay-critical data to be delivered before expiration of a packet delay budget; ¶ 581 discloses that prioritizing, for example, delay-critical RLC SDU A1 over non-delay-critical RLC SDU A2 to increase the possibility that packet delay budget is met for the one or more RLC SDUs).
Regarding Claims 19-20, though of a different scope, the limitations of claims 19-20 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 1, and is rejected under the same reasoning, even with interpreting claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dalmiya et al. (US 2023/0090373, previously made of record, hereinafter Dalmiya).
Regarding Claim 2, Chun discloses the wireless device of claim 1.
Chun may not explicitly disclose wherein the first set of one or more parameters comprises an input to a model for the hybrid automatic repeat request associated with the radio link control entity of the wireless device, wherein a second set of one or more parameters comprises an output of the model, and wherein the one or more operations are performed further based at least in part on the output of the model.
However, in analogous art, Dalmiya discloses wherein the first set of one or more parameters comprises an input to a model for the hybrid automatic repeat request associated with the radio link control entity of the wireless device, wherein a second set of one or more parameters comprises an output of the model, and wherein the one or more operations are performed further based at least in part on the output of the model (¶¶ 7, 34, 63, 104, and 115).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Dalmiya to modify Chun in order to receive parameters as input to a model for HARQ associated an RLC entity of the wireless device. One would have been motivated to do this, because use of that information at input for such a model may enable buffering packets for dynamically determined durations, which can provide low overhead and low end-to-end latency (Dalmiya ¶ 34).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hua (CN 120675666, citing Figures from CN 120675666 and description from a provided machine-generated English translation of CN 120675666 indicated as Non-Patent Literature (NPL)).
Regarding Claim 5, Chun discloses the wireless device of claim 3.
Chun may not explicitly disclose wherein a medium access control header of a medium access control-control element (MAC-CE) indicates a retransmission of the medium access control protocol data unit, or wherein an uplink control information indicates the retransmission of the at least one protocol data unit.
However, in analogous art, Hua discloses wherein a medium access control header of a medium access control-control element (MAC-CE) indicates a retransmission of the medium access control protocol data unit, or wherein an uplink control information indicates the retransmission of the at least one protocol data unit (Fig. 3a, and p. 11, last ¶ through p. 12, 2nd ¶ disclose a 1st node sending 2nd data carried by a 2nd MAC PDU including a 2nd MAC CE including a first identity representing a number of retransmissions of the 2nd data; and p. 12, 3rd ¶ discloses the 2nd MAC CE as an uplink MAC CE (i.e., a type of uplink control information)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Hua to modify Chun in order to provide a retransmission count in a MAC CE or an uplink MAC PDU. One would have been motivated to do this, because this operation is part of a mapping mode that is god for low time delay operation of the terminal device, which apparently increases the efficiency of the communication system (Hua p. 11 penultimate ¶).
Regarding Claim 6, Chun discloses the wireless device of claim 3.
Chun may not explicitly disclose wherein an uplink control information header or uplink control information indicates a retransmission of the at least one protocol data unit.
However, in analogous art, Hua discloses wherein an uplink control information header or uplink control information indicates a retransmission of the at least one protocol data unit (Fig. 3a, and p. 11, last ¶ through p. 12, 2nd ¶ disclose a 1st node sending 2nd data carried by a 2nd MAC PDU including a 2nd MAC CE including a first identity representing a number of retransmissions of the 2nd data; and p. 12, 3rd ¶ discloses the 2nd MAC CE as an uplink MAC CE (i.e., a type of uplink control information)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Hua to modify Chun in order to provide a retransmission count in a MAC CE or an uplink MAC PDU. One would have been motivated to do this, because this operation is part of a mapping mode that is god for low time delay operation of the terminal device, which apparently increases the efficiency of the communication system (Hua p. 11 penultimate ¶).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sung et al. (US 2010/0257419, hereinafter Sung).
Regarding Claim 7, Chun discloses the wireless device of claim 3.
Chun may not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to:
select a redundancy version of a set of redundancy versions for the retransmission of the at least one protocol data unit; and
retransmit the at least one protocol data unit based at least in part on the redundancy version.
However, in analogous art, Sung discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to:
select a redundancy version of a set of redundancy versions for the retransmission of the at least one protocol data unit (Fig. 7, ¶¶ 69 and 76 disclose a UE receiving scheduling information from a base station including a redundancy version (RV) for informing of the number of retransmissions of HARQ data); and
retransmit the at least one protocol data unit based at least in part on the redundancy version (¶ 75 discloses the UE retransmitting HARQ data based on the redundancy version).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sung to modify Chun in order to have a UE use redundancy version information (RV) received from a base station to retransmit uplink HARQ data — effectively selecting the received RV from a set of received RV, such as where the set of RVs consists of a single RV. One would have been motivated to do this, because use of redundancy version for informing of a number of retransmission of HARQ data enables prompt detection of transmission error in a HARQ feedback (ACK/NACK) signal and, thus, high speed data transmission (Sung ¶¶ 14 and 69).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xue et al. (US 2021/0376895, hereinafter Xue).
Regarding Claim 10, Chun discloses the wireless device of claim 1.
Chun may not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to:
generate a report associated with a model for the hybrid automatic repeat request associated with the radio link control entity of the wireless device, wherein the report comprises a set of one or more logs associated with processing of one or more protocol data units of the set of one or more protocol data units in accordance with the model; and
transmit, to a network entity, the report associated with the model.
However, in analogous art, Xue discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to:
generate a report associated with a model for the hybrid automatic repeat request associated with the radio link control entity of the wireless device, wherein the report comprises a set of one or more logs associated with processing of one or more protocol data units of the set of one or more protocol data units in accordance with the model (Fig. 5, ¶¶ 61 and 66 disclose a UE, having received a CSI prediction model from a network entity, generating a quantized CSI difference value based on a quantization of a difference between the calculated CSI and the CSI predicted based on the CSI prediction model, wherein CSI includes HARQ information, and the generated quantized CSI difference value may quantize a difference value into one of two values representing a coarse classification of the difference value or into one of a plurality of values representing a finer-grained classification of the difference value); and
transmit, to a network entity, the report associated with the model (Fig. 5 and ¶ 67 discloses the UE reporting, to the network entity, the calculated CSI and the quantized CSI difference value).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Xue to modify Chun in order to have a UE report a model's performance as quantized values to a network entity (BS). One would have been motivated to do this, because a network entity can improve network efficiency by learning the accuracy of CSI reports generated by a UE and may do so more quickly based on predicted CSI versus learning a posteriori whether the CSI reported by the UE is accurate (e.g., based on acknowledgment (ACK)/negative acknowledgment (NACK) statistics, which may result in a number of failed transmissions and retransmissions that effectively reduces network throughput) (Xue ¶ 60).
Regarding Claim 11, Chun-Xue disclose the wireless device of claim 10.
Chun may not explicitly disclose wherein at least one log of the set of one or more logs indicates one or more of the first set of one or more parameters for hybrid automatic repeat request associated with the radio link control entity of the wireless device, a second set of one or more parameters for hybrid automatic repeat request associated with the radio link control entity of the wireless device, timing information associated with one or more dropped protocol data units of the set of one or more protocol data units or one or more retransmitted protocol data units of the set of one or more protocol data units, or a set of one or more sequence numbers associated with the one or more dropped protocol data units of the set of one or more protocol data units or one or more retransmitted protocol data units of the set of one or more protocol data units.
However, in analogous art, Xue disclose wherein at least one log of the set of one or more logs indicates one or more of the first set of one or more parameters for hybrid automatic repeat request associated with the radio link control entity of the wireless device, a second set of one or more parameters for hybrid automatic repeat request associated with the radio link control entity of the wireless device, timing information associated with one or more dropped protocol data units of the set of one or more protocol data units or one or more retransmitted protocol data units of the set of one or more protocol data units, or a set of one or more sequence numbers associated with the one or more dropped protocol data units of the set of one or more protocol data units or one or more retransmitted protocol data units of the set of one or more protocol data units (Fig. 5, ¶¶ 61 and 66 disclose the generated quantized CSI difference value may quantize a difference value into one of two values representing a coarse classification of the difference value or into one of a plurality of values representing a finer-grained classification of the difference value; Fig. 7 and ¶¶ 74-76 disclose the CSI feedback as based on an expected time at which the network entity is to transmit data and a time at which the UE is to measure CSI and generate the CSI feedback report).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Xue to modify Chun in order to have a UE report a model's performance as quantized values to a network entity (BS). One would have been motivated to do this, because a network entity can improve network efficiency by learning the accuracy of CSI reports generated by a UE and may do so more quickly based on predicted CSI versus learning a posteriori whether the CSI reported by the UE is accurate (e.g., based on acknowledgment (ACK)/negative acknowledgment (NACK) statistics, which may result in a number of failed transmissions and retransmissions that effectively reduces network throughput) (Xue ¶ 60).
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R CAIRNS whose telephone number is (571)270-0487. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM ET M-F.
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, MARCUS SMITH can be reached at (571) 270-1096. 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.
/Thomas R Cairns/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights