DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 7 June 2024.
Claims 1-15 are under examination.
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0198539 A1), as recited in the IDS, in view of Nakayama et al. (US 2011/0075856 A1).
Claim 1 recites:
"A wireless communication device comprising:"
Kim discloses a wireless communication device comprising a relay base station operating in a wireless communication network including a central base station, relay base station, and terminal, wherein the relay base station performs relay transmission between wireless communication devices (Abstract; ¶¶23-27).
Claim 1 further recites:
"a data processing unit comprising circuitry configured to direct relay transmission..."
Kim discloses a processor and associated circuitry configured to perform direct relay transmission by receiving downlink data from a central base station and transmitting the received data directly to a terminal without performing conventional demodulation, decoding, coding, or modulation processing, thereby reducing relay latency (¶¶73-94). Kim likewise teaches corresponding uplink relay transmission from the terminal toward the central base station (¶¶100-104).
Kim further teaches performing error checking during relay transmission. In particular, Kim teaches determining whether errors are present in relayed data and transmitting a negative acknowledgment (NACK) when an error is detected (¶94; ¶104).
Kim, however, does not expressly disclose generating a reusable pseudo data frame into which information derived from received packets is progressively written and overwritten.
Nakayama discloses a reusable transport-layer (TL) frame architecture that circulates through a communication network. Nakayama teaches that each node reads information from designated regions of the TL frame and writes received information into corresponding regions of the same reusable frame while the frame continues circulating through the network (¶17). Nakayama further teaches writing waveform data into designated transmission-channel regions of the TL frame (¶¶67, 70-72), overwriting management information in a returned TL frame before subsequent transmission (¶86), and overwriting waveform data from previous sampling periods with newly received waveform data (¶190).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement Kim's low-latency relay transmission using Nakayama's reusable TL frame architecture. Kim seeks to minimize relay latency by bypassing conventional processing operations during relay transmission, while Nakayama teaches a reusable frame architecture that permits received information to be written into an existing transport frame during continuous transmission. Applying Nakayama's reusable frame architecture to Kim's relay device would have predictably reduced relay processing overhead while maintaining the low-latency relay operation taught by Kim.
Claim 1 further recites:
"in which a pseudo data frame, in which a packet of a data signal transmitted from a first another wireless communication device is set as another information, is generated..."
Kim teaches receiving packets transmitted from a first wireless communication device for relay to another wireless communication device during direct relay transmission (¶¶73-90; ¶¶100-104).
Nakayama teaches generating and circulating a reusable TL frame into which received information is sequentially written by network nodes before forwarding (¶17; ¶¶67, 70-72). The reusable TL frame corresponds to the claimed pseudo data frame because it serves as an intermediate reusable frame structure into which received packet information is written prior to transmission.
Claim 1 further recites:
"information based on each received packet for which error detection is performed is overwritten on each pseudo data frame to generate a data frame, and the data frame is sequentially output;"
Kim teaches performing error detection on received packets before relay transmission (¶94; ¶104).
Nakayama teaches writing received information into designated regions of the reusable TL frame, overwriting previously stored information in those regions, and forwarding the updated frame through successive communication nodes during continued circulation of the TL frame (¶¶67, 70-72, 86, 88, 190).
It would have been obvious to overwrite information derived from Kim's error-checked received packets onto Nakayama's reusable TL frame so as to generate data frames for sequential transmission because such modification merely applies Nakayama's known reusable frame architecture to Kim's known low-latency relay system to obtain the predictable benefit of efficient relay processing while maintaining continuous transmission.
Claim 1 further recites:
"communication control circuitry configured to control transmission of the sequentially output data frames to a second another wireless communication device."
Kim teaches communication control circuitry configured to forward relay data to a second wireless communication device following relay processing (¶¶73-94; ¶¶100-104).
Nakayama likewise teaches transmitting the updated TL frame to subsequent communication nodes while the TL frame continuously circulates through the communication network (¶¶58, 67, 88).
Accordingly, the combination of Kim and Nakayama teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claim 1, and claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 2
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in view of Nakayama et al. for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 2 recites:
"The wireless communication device according to claim 1, wherein before performing the direct relay transmission, the communication control circuitry controls reception of a direct relay request signal for requesting the direct relay transmission, the direct relay request signal including information regarding a destination of the packet and a data rate of communication with the first another wireless communication device, and the information being transmitted from the first another wireless communication device."
Kim teaches receiving, at the relay base station, information from a first wireless communication device prior to performing low-latency relay transmission. Specifically, Kim discloses that the relay base station receives data and control information from the central base station, determines the communication resources associated with the low-latency service data, and thereafter performs direct relay transmission (¶¶58-60, 90-93, 100-103). Kim further teaches that the relay base station identifies the communication resources and communication parameters associated with the received data before forwarding the low-latency service data (¶¶90-93, 100-103).
Kim does not expressly disclose that the received control information is formatted as a direct relay request signal including destination information and a communication data rate.
However, transmitting a request message containing destination information and communication parameters prior to initiating relay transmission was well known in wireless communication systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Kim's relay establishment using a relay request message that includes destination information and communication data rate information because such information is routinely exchanged to establish and configure relay communication between wireless communication devices before relay forwarding begins.
Accordingly, claim 2 would have been obvious over Kim in view of Nakayama.
Regarding Claim 3
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in view of Nakayama et al. for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 2.
Claim 3 recites:
"The wireless communication device according to claim 2, wherein the communication control circuitry is configured to determine whether or not to permit the direct relay transmission in response to the direct relay request signal on a basis of at least one of a channel state of communication with the second another wireless communication device or a buffer state of the communication control unit, and transmit a direct relay response signal for responding to the direct relay request signal."
Kim teaches determining whether a low-latency relay service is to be supported based on communication conditions. Specifically, Kim determines whether the low-latency service is supported based on the signal quality of the radio link between the central base station and the relay base station and the signal quality of the radio link between the relay base station and the terminal before performing direct relay transmission (Abstract; ¶¶79-89). Kim further teaches performing relay transmission only when the relay conditions are satisfied (¶¶90-94, 100-104).
Kim does not expressly disclose transmitting a direct relay response signal in response to a direct relay request signal or considering the buffer state of the communication control circuitry.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to transmit a response message indicating whether relay transmission is permitted after evaluating the communication conditions because communicating the result of the relay admission determination is a routine control function necessary to establish relay communication. It would have further been obvious to consider available buffer resources in addition to channel conditions when deciding whether to admit relay traffic because both channel availability and buffer availability directly affect the ability of a relay device to support reliable low-latency forwarding.
Accordingly, claim 3 would have been obvious over Kim in view of Nakayama.
Regarding claim 6,
Claim 6 recites:
"...the communication control circuitry controls transmission of an interruption request signal for requesting interruption of the direct relay transmission to the first another wireless communication device."
Kim teaches communication control between the relay base station and communicating wireless devices through exchange of request and response messages and relay control signaling for establishing and controlling low-latency relay transmission.
It would have been obvious to provide an interruption request message to terminate or suspend relay transmission when relay operation is no longer desired, as such signaling represents a routine communication control function within a relay communication system.
Accordingly, claim 6 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 8,
Claim 8 recites obtaining identification information, the number of packets, and frame length from the received data signal.
Kim teaches relay processing of received packets.
Nakayama teaches management information contained within the reusable TL frame including frame identifiers, management data, channel information, and frame organization.
It would have been obvious to obtain identification information, packet information, and frame length from the received data signal in order to correctly assemble, manage, and relay the reusable frame.
Accordingly, claim 8 would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 9-15,
Claims 9-15 depend from or correspond to the subject matter of claims 1-8.
Kim and Nakayama teach or render obvious the additional limitations of these claims for the reasons set forth above with respect to their corresponding apparatus claims.
Accordingly, claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in view of Nakayama et al.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0198539 A1) in view of Nakayama et al. (US 2011/0075856 A1), and further in view of Skaljak (US Pub. 2022/0051093 A1).
Claim 5 recites:
"...in a case where a position of a first portion in the pseudo data frame, which is requested to be output from a physical layer, is closer to a position of a second portion which is not yet overwritten with information based on the packet than a threshold, the data processing unit overwrites the second portion with information based on the overwritten packet."
Kim and Nakayama teach the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Skaljak teaches a ring buffer implemented as a producer/consumer queue in shared memory, wherein a producer continuously writes frame data into successive slots while a consumer concurrently reads frame data from the buffer. Skaljak further teaches that, after the producer reaches the end of the ring buffer, the producer wraps around and overwrites previously stored frame data with newly generated frame data. Specifically, Skaljak teaches that GPU 204 writes frame data into successive slots of the ring buffer and, after wraparound, overwrites frame data previously stored in the corresponding slot with newer frame data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Skaljak's overwrite operation into the reusable frame architecture of Nakayama as implemented within Kim's relay device so that, once continued updating of the reusable frame is permitted, the unwritten portion of the reusable frame is overwritten with information corresponding to subsequently received packets. Applying Skaljak's known overwrite mechanism to Nakayama's reusable frame architecture merely employs a known ring-buffer overwrite technique within a known relay system to obtain the predictable result of continuous, efficient, and low-latency relay transmission.
Accordingly, claim 5 would have been obvious over Kim in view of Nakayama and further in view of Skaljak.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 7 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see form 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. 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.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights