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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/13/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim interpretation
Consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the published application, as described in paragraphs [0051] and [0121], the term outer coding is interpreted as a forward error correction (FEC) operation, as the specification states that “performing outer coding may include using a forward error correction (FEC) to add one or more parity symbols to a PDU set” (Spec. para [0051]) and that an outer coding block “may include one or more source symbols and one or more parity symbols” (Spec. para [0052]). The outer coding source symbols are thus the source, or systematic, symbols of the FEC operation, as distinguished from the parity symbols. (See also FIG. 15)
The term non-segmented is interpreted as source symbols that are generated and transmitted “without performing outer coding symbol segmentation” (Spec. para [0054]), such that “the original PDCP PDUs may not be segmented and transmitted” and “the source symbols may be equal to the PDCP PDUs” (Spec. para [0140]). Accordingly, the limitation non-segmented outer coding source symbols is interpreted as source symbols of an outer coding (FEC) code in which each source symbol is carried whole and is not split or segmented into a plurality of outer coding symbols. The rejection below applies this interpretation.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (US 2023/0269026 A1) in view of Luby (US 2021/0211483 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zheng discloses: An apparatus for wireless communication at a transmitting device, comprising: one or more memories one or more memories, one or more memories, because Zheng teaches provides memory coupled with a processor (i.e., “one or more memories” as claimed) storing instructions executed at a transmitting device (Zheng, para [0772] “a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:”).
Furthermore, Zheng discloses: one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors individually or collectively configured to cause the transmitting device to: obtain a plurality of packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) packets, since Zheng teaches receives one or more service data units at an L2 layer that comprises a PDCP layer (i.e., “obtain a plurality of packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) packets” as claimed), obtaining the packets to be encoded (Zheng, para [0707] “receive one or more service data units (SDUs) at a layer two (L2) layer of the transmitting device;” … para [0707] “source data objects may be provided as RLC SDUs from a layer (e.g., PDCP, RRC, etc.) above the RLC layer.”).
Additionally, Zheng discloses: generate a plurality of source symbols in accordance with applying a forward error correction encoding to the plurality of PDCP packets, in particular because Zheng teaches applies network coding, i.e. an erasure/forward-error-correction code (i.e., “applying a forward error correction encoding” as claimed), to the packets to generate coded source data units (i.e., “generate a plurality of source symbols” as claimed) (Zheng, para [0704] “Network coding (e.g., a selected erasure code, such as a fountain code, tornado code, LDPC code, Reed-Solomon coding, MDS code, etc.) may be applied to the plurality of RLC PDUs to generate source data RLC PDUs and repair data RLC PDUs”).
Zheng does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of source symbols are non-segmented outer coding source symbols.
In addition, Zheng discloses: transmit the plurality of source symbols, particularly since Zheng teaches outputs the encoded source data units from the L2 layer to a lower layer for transmission (i.e., “transmit the plurality of source symbols” as claimed) to one or more receiving devices (Zheng, para [0014] “output the at least one encoded PDU and the at least one corresponding PDU header from the L2 layer to a lower layer of the transmitting device for transmission to one or more receiving devices.”).
Yet, Zheng in view of Luby discloses wherein the plurality of source symbols are non-segmented outer coding source symbols. because Luby teaches an outer, forward error correction code in which the source symbols are the systematic symbols that encode the data to be transmitted where each source symbol is placed whole into a packet and is not split or segmented across packets, (Luby, para [0079], “the source symbols of the source block may be included as part of the encoding of the source block and thus the source symbols are transmitted.” … para [0094], “Source symbols are those symbols that encode the data that is to be transmitted.”). Moreover, Luby teaches that a symbol is carried whole and is not split across packets, with each packet carrying a single encoded symbol, so that the source symbols are non-segmented (Luby, para [0094], “usually symbols are not split across groups of packets” … para [0096], “each packet carries one encoded symbol”). Thus, Luby explicitly teaches source symbols that are non-segmented outer coding source symbols, as claimed. (See also claim interpretation)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate the source symbols of Zheng's outer coding as non-segmented source symbols, each carried whole within a packet, as taught by Luby. Zheng applies network coding, i.e., an erasure or forward error correction code, to the PDCP and RLC data to generate coded source data (See Zheng, para [0707]), and Luby teaches the known technique of placing a single whole encoded symbol into each packet payload without splitting symbols across packets (Luby, para [0094], para [0096]). Applying Luby's one-symbol-per-packet technique to Zheng's outer coding transmitter is the use of a known technique that yields the predictable result of a one-to-one correspondence between each PDCP packet and a whole, non-segmented source symbol, without splitting or segmenting a symbol across packets (see MPEP 2143). Zheng and Luby are analogous art, each being directed to forward error correction coding for the transmission of packet data.
Regarding claim 2, in spite of the fact that Zheng teaches the Zheng/Luby transmitter obtains PDCP packets and applies FEC/network coding to generate non-segmented source symbols that are transmitted from a memory-and-processor apparatus: (Zheng, para. [0025], [0707]), Zheng does not explicitly disclose generation of a plurality of outer coding parity symbols in accordance with the source symbols.
Yet, Zheng in view of Luby discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the transmitting device to generate a plurality of outer coding parity symbols in accordance with the plurality of source symbols because a systematic FEC encoder that generates repair (parity) symbols from a source block of source symbols, so that the parity symbols are produced in accordance with the source symbols (Luby, para [0079], “A systematic FEC encoder generates, from a source block of source symbols, some number of repair symbols” … para [0094], “Repair symbols are symbols generated from source symbols, directly or indi rectly that are in addition to the source symbols”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the Zheng/Luby transmitter generate outer coding parity symbols from the source symbols as taught by Luby, because Luby teaches that a systematic FEC encoder produces repair symbols from a source block of source symbols to enable recovery of lost source data, and adding such parity symbols to Zheng's coded stream predictably improves erasure resilience with no more than routine application of a known coding technique.
Regarding claim 3, although Zheng teaches the Zheng/Luby transmitter generates outer coding parity symbols from the non-segmented source symbols obtained by FEC-encoding the PDCP packets: (Zheng, para. [0025], [0707]), Zheng does not explicitly disclose generating the parity symbols in accordance with the source symbols and an outer coding symbol size.
Yet, Zheng in view of Luby discloses The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the transmitting device to generate the plurality of outer coding parity symbols, are configured to cause the transmitting device to generate the plurality of outer coding parity symbols in accordance with the plurality of source symbols and an outer coding symbol size because an FEC scheme that uses a defined symbol size S in bytes for encoding, generating the repair symbols of the repair block from the source symbols using that symbol size, so parity generation depends on both the source symbols and the outer coding symbol size (Luby, para [0541], “The parameter S indicates the symbol size in bytes used for FEC encoding and decoding.” … para [0543], “The repair segment comprises a concatenation of the repair symbols for the fragments”).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to generate the Zheng/Luby transmitter's parity symbols in accordance with the source symbols and a defined outer coding symbol size as taught by Luby, because Luby expressly uses a symbol size parameter S for FEC encoding and forms repair symbols on that basis, and applying a consistent symbol size in Zheng's coded RLC path predictably yields aligned, decodable source and parity symbols using ordinary coding practice.
Regarding claim 4, in spite of the fact that Zheng teaches the Zheng/Luby transmitter generates outer coding parity symbols from the source symbols using a defined outer coding symbol size when FEC-encoding the PDCP packets: (Zheng, para. [0025], [0707]), Zheng does not explicitly disclose obtaining an indication of the outer coding symbol size from a physical layer and basing the parity symbols on that size.
Yet, Zheng in view of Luby discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the transmitting device to obtain, from a physical layer, an indication of the outer coding symbol size because the symbol size S used for FEC encoding is a configured parameter provided to the encoder, so that the encoding entity obtains an indication of the outer coding symbol size, and constraining that size to the packet-payload size aligns the symbol with the lower physical layer's payload capability (Luby, para [0541], “The parameter S indicates the symbol size in bytes used for FEC encoding and decoding.” … para [0094], “often the size of a symbol is at most equal to the size of the packet.”).
Moreover, Luby discloses wherein the plurality of outer coding parity symbols are based at least in part on the outer coding symbol size because the repair (parity) symbols are formed as S-byte symbols within the repair block according to the same symbol size S used for encoding, so the parity symbols are based at least in part on the outer coding symbol size (Luby, para [0545], “the last source symbol is padded out with zero bytes so that it is S bytes in size for the purposes of FEC encoding and decoding” … para [0543], “The repair segment comprises a concatenation of the repair symbols for the fragments”).
For these reasons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the Zheng/Luby transmitter obtain the outer coding symbol size as a configured parameter and to base the parity symbols on that size as taught by Luby, because Luby teaches a symbol size parameter S that governs FEC encoding and constrains symbol size to at most the packet payload, so obtaining that size from the transmission layer lets a PHOSITA match symbols to the physical payload, and forming the S-byte repair symbols on that same size predictably produces uniformly sized, decodable parity symbols; applying the single symbol-size parameter to both the size-indication step and the parity-symbol-formation step reflects one coherent design choice a skilled artisan would make together rather than separately.
Regarding claim 5, even though Zheng teaches the Zheng/Luby transmitter FEC-encodes PDCP packets into non-segmented source symbols that are transmitted: (Zheng, para. [0025], [0707]), Zheng does not explicitly disclose a source symbol size smaller than the PDCP packet size.
Yet, Zheng in view of Luby discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein a source symbol size associated with the plurality of source symbols is smaller than a PDCP packet size associated with the plurality of PDCP packets because a packet is subdivided into symbols on which the FEC process is applied, with a symbol at most equal to and typically smaller than the packet size, so each source symbol size is smaller than the packet size (Luby, para [0094], “In many applications, packets may be further sub divided into symbols on which the FEC process is applied. A packet can contain one or more symbol” … para [0094], “often the size of a symbol is at most equal to the size of the packet.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to size the Zheng/Luby transmitter's source symbols smaller than the PDCP packet size as taught by Luby, because Luby teaches subdividing packets into multiple smaller symbols for FEC processing, and choosing a symbol size below the packet size in Zheng's coded RLC path predictably allows several symbols per packet and finer erasure protection using ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 6, in spite of the fact that Zheng teaches the Zheng/Luby transmitter FEC-encodes PDCP packets into non-segmented source symbols that are transmitted with corresponding PDU headers: (Zheng, para. [0025]), Zheng does not explicitly disclose indicating a source symbol index for a first source symbol.
Yet, Zheng in view of Luby discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the transmitting device to indicate a source symbol index for a first source symbol of the plurality of source symbols because each symbol is assigned an encoding symbol identifier (ESI), with the source symbols numbered 0, 1, ..., so the transmitter indicates a symbol index for the first source symbol (ESI 0) (Luby, para [0545], “the ESis for the source symbol are 0, 1,..., NSS(i)-1” … para [0543], “within a fragment the repair symbols are in order of their encoding symbol identifier (ESI).”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the Zheng/Luby transmitter indicate a source symbol index for the first source symbol as taught by Luby, because Luby assigns each source symbol an encoding symbol identifier beginning at index 0, and carrying such an index in Zheng's per-PDU headers predictably lets the receiver order and identify the symbols for decoding using a well-known indexing technique.
Regarding claim 7, even though Zheng teaches the Zheng/Luby transmitter indicates a source symbol index for the first source symbol, the symbols being numbered by consecutive encoding symbol identifiers: (Zheng, para. [0025]), Zheng does not explicitly disclose refraining from indicating a source symbol index for the remaining source symbols after the first.
Yet, Zheng in view of Luby discloses The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the transmitting device to refrain from indicating a source symbol index for a remainder of the plurality of source symbols subsequent to the first source symbol because because the source symbol ESIs run consecutively 0, 1, ..., NSS(i)-1 in a fixed order, only the first index need be conveyed and the remaining indices are implied by the ordering, so the transmitter refrains from separately indicating an index for the later symbols (Luby, para [0545], “the ESis for the source symbol are 0, 1,..., NSS(i)-1 and the ESis for the repair symbols are NSS(i),..., NSS(i)+NRS(i)-1.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the Zheng/Luby transmitter omit separate indices for the source symbols following the first as taught by Luby, because Luby numbers the source symbols with consecutive encoding symbol identifiers in a fixed order, so the receiver can derive the later indices from the first, and refraining from signaling redundant indices predictably reduces header overhead using ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 8, although Zheng teaches the Zheng/Luby transmitter FEC-encodes PDCP packets into non-segmented source symbols using a defined symbol size for encoding: (Zheng, para. [0025]), Zheng does not explicitly disclose a zero padding length for a last outer coding symbol to align it with the packet size.
Yet, Zheng in view of Luby discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the transmitting device to identify a zero padding length for a last outer coding symbol associated with a PDCP packet of the plurality of PDCP packets to align a size of the last outer coding symbol with a size of the PDCP packet because the last source symbol is padded out with zero bytes so that it is S bytes in size when the fragment length is not a multiple of the symbol size, thereby identifying a zero padding length that aligns the last symbol to the required size (Luby, para [0545], “The last source symbol is padded out with zero bytes for the purposes of FEC encoding and decoding if 8(i)-8(i-1) is not a multiple of S, i.e., the last source symbol is padded out with zero bytes so that it is S bytes in size”).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the Zheng/Luby transmitter identify a zero padding length for the last outer coding symbol as taught by Luby, because Luby pads the last source symbol with zero bytes to reach the full symbol size when the source data is not a multiple of the symbol size, and applying that padding in Zheng's coded path predictably yields uniformly sized symbols for encoding and decoding using routine practice.
Regarding claim 10, Zheng discloses: one or more memories, particularly since Zheng teaches provides memory coupled with a processor (i.e., “one or more memories” as claimed) storing instructions executed at a receiving device (Zheng, para [0784] “a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:”).
Furthermore, Zheng discloses: one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors individually or collectively configured to cause the receiving device to: receive a plurality of radio link control (RLC) packets, notably because Zheng teaches receives one or more protocol data units and corresponding PDU headers at an L2 layer that may be an RLC layer from a transmitting device (Zheng, para [0784] “receive, at an L2 layer of the receiving device, one or more protocol data units (PDUs) and one or more corresponding PDU headers from a transmitting device” … para [0716] “example operation by a RLC receive entity configured for network coding augmented communication of RLC layer payload.”).
Zheng does not explicitly disclose identify that the plurality of RLC packets are segmented by an outer coding symbol size.
Yet, Zheng in view of Luby discloses identify that the plurality of RLC packets are segmented by an outer coding symbol size because the received packets are subdivided into equal-size symbols on which FEC is applied using a defined symbol size S, so the receiver identifies that the packets are organized into symbols segmented by the outer coding symbol size for decoding (Luby, para [0094], “In many applications, packets may be further sub divided into symbols on which the FEC process is applied.” … para [0541], “The parameter S indicates the symbol size in bytes used for FEC encoding and decoding.”).
Additionally, Zheng discloses: generate a plurality of source symbols in accordance with the plurality of RLC packets and the outer coding symbol size, at least because Zheng teaches decodes at least a subset of the received PDUs based on network coding parameters (i.e., “generate a plurality of source symbols in accordance with the plurality of RLC packets” as claimed) and the corresponding headers to reconstruct the source data units (Zheng, para [0031] “decode, at the L2 layer, at least a subset of the one or more PDUs based at least in part on one or more network coding parameters and the one or more corresponding PDU headers”).
In addition, Zheng discloses: process the plurality of source symbols to obtain a plurality of packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) packets, because Zheng teaches obtains the service data units, which come from a PDCP layer (i.e., “obtain a plurality of packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) packets” as claimed) above the RLC layer, from the decoded subset of PDUs (Zheng, para [0754] “generating a report based at least in part on the decoding, wherein the report indicates whether an SDU of the one or more SDUs was obtained via the decoding;” … para [0707] “source data objects may be provided as RLC SDUs from a layer (e.g., PDCP, RRC, etc.) above the RLC layer.”).
Regarding claim 11, in spite of the fact that Zheng teaches the Zheng/Luby receiver receives RLC packets segmented by an outer coding symbol size and decodes them to generate source symbols and obtain the PDCP packets: (Zheng, para. [0029]), Zheng does not explicitly disclose receiving parity symbols and generating the source symbols using the RLC packets, the symbol size, and the parity symbols.
Yet, Zheng in view of Luby discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the receiving device to receive a plurality of parity symbols because the receiver receives repair (parity) symbols in addition to the source symbols, with the repair symbols concatenated in the repair segment (Luby, para [0094], “Repair symbols are symbols generated from source symbols, directly or indi rectly that are in addition to the source symbols”).
Moreover, Luby discloses wherein generating the plurality of source symbols in accordance with the plurality of RLC packets and the outer coding symbol size comprises generating the plurality of source symbols in accordance with the plurality of RLC packets, the outer coding symbol size, and the plurality of parity symbols because FEC decoding uses a combination of received source and repair data to recover the source data, so the source symbols are recovered in accordance with the packets, the symbol size, and the received parity symbols (Luby, para [0137], “using FEC decoding to use a combination of received source and repair data to recover the source data of the fragment.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the Zheng/Luby receiver receive parity symbols and generate the source symbols using the packets, the symbol size, and those parity symbols as taught by Luby, because Luby teaches that FEC decoding combines received source and repair symbols to recover lost source data, and applying repair symbols in Zheng's decoding predictably restores the source data when some coded packets are lost using ordinary erasure-decoding practice.
Regarding claim 16, Zheng discloses: one or more memories, particularly since Zheng teaches provides memory coupled with a processor (i.e., “one or more memories” as claimed) storing executable instructions at a transmitting device (Zheng, para [0784] “a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:”).
Furthermore, Zheng discloses: one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors individually or collectively configured to cause the transmitting device to: obtain a plurality of packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) packets, notably because Zheng teaches receives one or more service data units at an L2 layer that comprises a PDCP layer (i.e., “obtain a plurality of packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) packets” as claimed), obtaining the packets to be coded (Zheng, para [0784] “receive one or more service data units (SDUs) at a layer two (L2) layer of the transmitting device;” … para [0707] “source data objects may be provided as RLC SDUs from a layer (e.g., PDCP, RRC, etc.) above the RLC layer.”).
Additionally, Zheng discloses: generate a plurality of outer coding symbols in accordance with a maximum PDCP packet size of the plurality of PDCP packets, at least because Zheng teaches segments each SDU into fragments of equal size and applies network coding to generate coded PDUs (i.e., “generate a plurality of outer coding symbols” as claimed), the fragments sized to the source data (Zheng, para [0707] “each RLC SDU may be segmented into k source data fragments of equal size.”).
Zheng does not explicitly disclose adjust a PDCP packet size, for one or more PDCP packets not having the maximum PDCP packet size, to be equal to an outer coding symbol size of the plurality of outer coding symbols.
Yet, Zheng in view of Luby discloses adjust a PDCP packet size, for one or more PDCP packets not having the maximum PDCP packet size, to be equal to an outer coding symbol size of the plurality of outer coding symbols because the last symbol shorter than the fixed symbol size is padded with zero bytes so that it is S bytes in size, thereby adjusting the size of a packet not having the maximum size to equal the outer coding symbol size (Luby, para [0545], “the last source symbol is padded out with zero bytes so that it is S bytes in size for the purposes of FEC encoding and decoding” … para [0077], “the data to be encoded (i.e., source data) has been broken into equal length “symbols””).
In addition, Zheng discloses: transmit the plurality of PDCP packets in accordance with adjusting the PDCP packet size, because Zheng teaches outputs the encoded PDUs from the L2 layer to a lower layer for transmission (i.e., “transmit the plurality of PDCP packets” as claimed) to one or more receiving devices (Zheng, para [0014] “output the at least one encoded PDU and the at least one corresponding PDU header from the L2 layer to a lower layer of the transmitting device for transmission to one or more receiving devices.”).
Regarding claim 17, although Zheng teaches the Zheng/Luby transmitter obtains PDCP packets, generates equal-size outer coding symbols sized to the maximum packet size, and outputs the coded PDUs to a lower layer: (Zheng, para. [0025], [0707]), Zheng does not explicitly disclose transmitting a single RLC layer packet corresponding to each PDCP packet.
Yet, Zheng in view of Luby discloses The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the transmitting device to transmit the plurality of PDCP packets, are configured to cause the transmitting device to transmit a single radio link control layer packet corresponding to each PDCP packet of the plurality of PDCP packets because with each symbol placed into a separate packet payload and one symbol carried per packet, a single lower-layer packet corresponds to each source symbol, i.e. a single RLC packet per PDCP packet (Luby, para [0096], “Since symbols are often required to be placed into separate packet payloads” … para [0096], “each packet carries one encoded symbol”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the Zheng/Luby transmitter send a single RLC-layer packet corresponding to each PDCP packet as taught by Luby, because Luby places each encoded symbol into its own separate packet payload with one symbol per packet, and adopting that one-symbol-per-packet mapping in Zheng's coded path predictably yields a straightforward one-to-one packet correspondence using ordinary practice.
Regarding claim 18, even though Zheng teaches the Zheng/Luby transmitter transmits a single RLC-layer packet corresponding to each PDCP packet, one encoded symbol per packet payload: (Zheng, para. [0025]), Zheng does not explicitly disclose transmitting the single RLC layer packet without concatenation or segmentation.
Yet, Zheng in view of Luby discloses The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the transmitting device to transmit the single radio link control layer packet, are configured to cause the transmitting device to transmit the single radio link control layer packet corresponding to each PDCP packet of the plurality of PDCP packets without performing a concatenation operation or a segmentation operation because because each equal-length symbol is carried whole in its own packet payload and symbols are not split across packets, the single RLC packet corresponds to each PDCP packet without any concatenation or segmentation operation (Luby, para [0094], “usually symbols are not split across groups of packets” … para [0096], “Since symbols are often required to be placed into separate packet payloads”).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the Zheng/Luby transmitter send each single RLC-layer packet without concatenation or segmentation as taught by Luby, because Luby carries each symbol whole in a separate packet payload and does not split symbols across packets, so mapping one symbol to one packet in Zheng's path predictably avoids any concatenation or segmentation step using ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 19, although Zheng teaches the Zheng/Luby transmitter generates equal-size outer coding symbols and adjusts shorter PDCP packets up to the outer coding symbol size for transmission: (Zheng, para. [0025]), Zheng does not explicitly disclose identifying zero padding bits applied to a PDCP packet not having the maximum size.
Yet, Zheng in view of Luby discloses The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the transmitting device to identify one or more zero padding bits to be applied to a PDCP packet of the plurality of PDCP packets that does not have a size that is equal to the maximum PDCP packet size because the last source symbol, when shorter than the fixed size, is padded out with zero bytes so it reaches S bytes, identifying the zero padding to be applied to a packet not having the full symbol (maximum) size (Luby, para [0545], “The last source symbol is padded out with zero bytes for the purposes of FEC encoding and decoding if 8(i)-8(i-1) is not a multiple of S”).
For these reasons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the Zheng/Luby transmitter identify zero padding bits for a PDCP packet that is not of the maximum size as taught by Luby, because Luby pads a short final symbol with zero bytes so it reaches the full symbol size, and applying that padding to under-sized packets in Zheng's coded path predictably produces the equal-sized symbols required for encoding using routine practice.
Claims 9, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (US 2023/0269026 A1) in view of Luby (US 2021/0211483 A1) and further in view of Malik (US 2024/0121663 A1).
Regarding claim 9, even though Zheng in view of Luby teaches the Zheng/Luby transmitter obtains PDCP packets and FEC-encodes them into non-segmented source symbols that are transmitted: (Zheng, para. [0025], [0707]; Luby, para. [0079], [0094]), Zheng in view of Luby does not explicitly disclose PDCP packets associated with a protocol data unit set or protocol data unit burst.
Yet, Zheng in view of Luby and further in view of Malik discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of PDCP packets are associated with at least one of a protocol data unit set or a protocol data unit burst because the PDCP entity handles PDU sets, with a PDU-to-PDU-set mapping of several packets, so the PDCP packets are associated with a protocol data unit set (Malik, para [0062], “given the PDU-to PDU set mapping of several packets, the Rx at the RAN node 1814 may wait a max_delay duration of 20 ms for critical packets” … para [0249], “wherein each discard timer instance in the set of discard timer instances corresponds to respective PDUs in the at least one PDU set.”).
For these reasons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to associate the Zheng/Luby transmitter's PDCP packets with a protocol data unit set as taught by Malik, because Malik describes PDCP handling in which several packets are mapped to a PDU set for delay-critical traffic, and organizing Zheng's coded PDCP packets into such PDU sets predictably supports the set-level delay and buffering treatment that Malik uses for such traffic.
Regarding claim 15, in spite of the fact that Zheng in view of Luby teaches the Zheng/Luby receiver receives RLC packets segmented by an outer coding symbol size, decodes them into source symbols, and reconstructs the PDCP packets: (Zheng, para. [0029]; Luby, para. [0094], [0541]), Zheng in view of Luby does not explicitly disclose PDCP packets associated with a protocol data unit set or protocol data unit burst.
Yet, Zheng in view of Luby and further in view of Malik discloses The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the plurality of PDCP packets are associated with at least one of a protocol data unit set or a protocol data unit burst because the PDCP entity handles PDU sets, with a PDU-to-PDU-set mapping of several packets, so the reconstructed PDCP packets are associated with a protocol data unit set (Malik, para [0062], “given the PDU-to PDU set mapping of several packets, the Rx at the RAN node 1814 may wait a max_delay duration of 20 ms for critical packets” … para [0249], “wherein each discard timer instance in the set of discard timer instances corresponds to respective PDUs in the at least one PDU set.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to associate the Zheng/Luby receiver's PDCP packets with a protocol data unit set as taught by Malik, because Malik describes PDCP packets mapped to a PDU set for delay-critical traffic, and treating Zheng's reconstructed PDCP packets as members of such a PDU set predictably lets the receiver apply the set-level handling Malik contemplates for that traffic.
Regarding claim 20, in spite of the fact that Zheng in view of Luby teaches the Zheng/Luby transmitter obtains PDCP packets, generates equal-size outer coding symbols to the maximum packet size, and transmits the coded PDCP packets: (Zheng, para. [0025], [0707]; Luby, para. [0545]), Zheng in view of Luby does not explicitly disclose receiving from a network node an indication of a maximum protocol data unit size.
Yet, Zheng in view of Luby and further in view of Malik discloses The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the transmitting device to receive, from a network node, an indication of a maximum protocol data unit size of a plurality of PDCP protocol data units because the UE receives a PDCP-Config information element from the network configuring PDCP parameters governing the PDU set, providing a network-node-signaled configuration bounding the PDU handling, thereby indicating a maximum protocol data unit size parameter for the PDCP PDUs (Malik, para [0064], “an example PDCP con figuration (PDCP-Config) IE, which is used to set the configurable PDCP parameters for signaling, MBS multicast and data radio bearers.” … para [0270], “the explicit network congestion is included in a MAC CE or headers of one or more downlink packets.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the Zheng/Luby transmitter receive a maximum protocol data unit size indication from a network node as taught by Malik, because Malik configures the UE's PDCP entity with parameters delivered in a PDCP-Config information element and network signaling, and receiving a network-node indication bounding the PDU size in Zheng's transmitter predictably lets the device set its outer coding symbol size consistently with the network configuration using ordinary skill.
For these reasons Zheng and Luby are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (US 2023/0269026 A1) in view of Luby (US 2021/0211483 A1) and further in view of Lou (US 2021/0399838 A1).
Regarding claim 12, although Zheng in view of Luby teaches the Zheng/Luby receiver receives RLC packets segmented by an outer coding symbol size and decodes them into source symbols to obtain the PDCP packets: (Zheng, para. [0029]; Luby, para. [0094], [0543]), Zheng in view of Luby does not explicitly disclose receiving an outer coding symbol index for error correction based on a post-header indication and a segmented symbol order indication.
Yet, Zheng in view of Luby and further in view of Lou discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the receiving device to receive an outer coding symbol index to be used for error correction of a corresponding outer coding symbol because the receiver receives per-subframe signaling identifying which segment is carried, so an index of the coded symbol used for the error-correction decoding of the corresponding symbol is received (Lou, para [0242], “may be prepared with a Segment ID, which may indicate what segment is carried on the following PHY-subframe,”).
Moreover, Lou discloses wherein the outer coding symbol index is based at least in part on an outer coding post-header indication and a segmented outer coding symbol order indication because the SIG-B signaling carries a number of post-FEC padding bits indication together with a segment indicator conveying the order of the carried segment, so the received index is derived from a post-coding header indication and a segment-order indication (Lou, para [0229], “A number of post-FEC padding bits ([log max Npad_postFEcl) may be used in the” … para [0242], “The SIG-B field may be prepared with a Segment ID, which may indicate what segment is carried on the following PHY-subframe”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the Zheng/Luby receiver receive an outer coding symbol index derived from a post-coding padding indication and a segment-order indication as taught by Lou, because Lou signals a segment indicator and post-FEC padding count per subframe that together identify and order the coded segment for decoding, and applying that per-symbol index signaling in Zheng's coded receiver predictably lets the device select the correct symbol for error correction using known signaling techniques.
Regarding claim 13, in spite of the fact that Zheng in view of Luby teaches the Zheng/Luby/Lou receiver receives an outer coding symbol index, derived from a post-coding indication and a segment-order indication, for error correction of a corresponding symbol: (Zheng, para. [0029]; Luby, para. [0543]), Zheng in view of Luby does not explicitly disclose receiving the outer coding symbol index for a first outer coding symbol of the plurality.
Yet, Zheng in view of Luby and further in view of Lou discloses The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the receiving device to receive the outer coding symbol index, are configured to cause the receiving device to receive the outer coding symbol index for a first outer coding symbol of a plurality of outer coding symbols because a segment indicator conveys which numbered segment is carried on a subframe, so for the first segment the corresponding index for the first coded symbol is received in that signaling (Lou, para [0229], “segment indicator ([log Ml bits) which may indicate what segment 2 is carried on the following PHY-subframe, (e.g., if it is 2; PHY subframe contains information related to the second segment);”).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the Zheng/Luby/Lou receiver receive the outer coding symbol index for the first coded symbol as taught by Lou, because Lou's segment indicator identifies the specific numbered segment carried on a subframe, including the first, and receiving the index for the first symbol in Zheng's coded receiver predictably establishes the reference point for locating the remaining symbols using ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 14, even though Zheng in view of Luby teaches the Zheng/Luby/Lou receiver receives the outer coding symbol index for a first outer coding symbol identified by a segment indicator: (Zheng, para. [0029]; Luby, para. [0543]), Zheng in view of Luby does not explicitly disclose calculating the outer coding symbol index for the remainder of the outer coding symbols.
Yet, Zheng in view of Luby and further in view of Lou discloses The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the receiving device to calculate the outer coding symbol index for a remainder of the outer coding symbols of the plurality of outer coding symbols because with segments numbered consecutively and the padding-and-index parameters signaled, the receiver derives (calculates) the indices for the remaining segments from the first, so the remaining outer coding symbol indices are calculated rather than each separately signaled (Lou, para [0242], “The SIG-B field may be prepared with a Segment ID, which may indicate what segment is carried on the following PHY-subframe, where this field may have flog Mmax l bits or [log Ml bits.”).
For these reasons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the Zheng/Luby/Lou receiver calculate the indices for the remaining coded symbols as taught by Lou, because Lou numbers the segments consecutively via the segment ID so that, given the first, the receiver can derive the subsequent indices, and computing the remaining indices in Zheng's receiver predictably reduces signaling overhead using an ordinary derivation of sequential indices.
Thus Zheng and Luby are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHONGSUH (John) PARK whose telephone number is 408-918-7574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:30 PST
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, Avellino, Joseph can be reached at 571-272-3905 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.
/CHONGSUH PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights