DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bannon et al. (USP 10,715,175).
Regarding claim 1, Bannon discloses a method encoding (same as compress) architecture in figure 7 that teaches: obtaining to-be-sent data (702); obtaining a plurality of data blocks based on the to-be-sent data (702); compressing a first data block (704,706) based on a compression mode (708) to obtain compressed first data block (710); and sending the compressed first data block (712), wherein the first data block is one of the plurality of data blocks (702) (see figure 7 and its descriptions).
Regarding claim 2, Bannon also teaches wherein the method further comprises: sending compression mode information (712), wherein the compression mode information indicates the compression mode (see figure 7 and its descriptions).
Regarding claim 3, Bannon also teaches wherein the compression mode information comprises one bit in a bitmap, and the bitmap indicates compression modes of the plurality of data blocks (see figure 7 and its descriptions).
Regarding claim 16, Bannon et al. discloses in figure 8 a architecture that teaches: receiving a compressed first data block (802, 804)); decompressing the compressed first data block to obtain a first data block, wherein the decompressing is based on a compression mode (806) of the first data block; and restoring (same meaning decompression) a plurality of data blocks into to-be-sent data (810), wherein the plurality of data blocks comprises the first data block (810) (see figure 8 and its descriptions).
Regarding claim 17, Bannon also teaches: receiving compression mode information (810), wherein the compression mode information indicates the compression mode (see figure 7, its descriptions).
Regarding claim 18, Bannon also teaches: wherein the compression mode information comprises one bit in a bitmap, and the bitmap indicates compression modes of the plurality of data blocks (see figure 7, its descriptions).
Regarding claim 19, Bannon also teaches: wherein the compression mode information indicates that the compression mode is one of the following compression modes: independent compression; and reference compression, wherein the reference compression is to compress the first data block based on a previous data block (see figure 7, its descriptions).
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Babington et al. (US 2021/0344549).
Regarding claim 1, Bannon discloses a method compression architecture in figure 7 that teaches: obtaining to-be-sent data (701); obtaining a plurality of data blocks based on the to-be-sent data (702); compressing a first data block (703) based on a compression mode (703) to obtain compressed first data block (704); and sending (705,706) the compressed first data block, wherein the first data block is one of the plurality of data blocks (702) (see figure 7 and its descriptions).
Regarding claim 2, Babington also teaches wherein the method further comprises: sending compression mode information (7705, 706), wherein the compression mode information indicates the compression mode (see figure 7 and its descriptions).
Regarding claim 3, Bannon also teaches wherein the compression mode information comprises one bit in a bitmap, and the bitmap indicates compression modes of the plurality of data blocks (see figure 7 and its descriptions).
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kodaka et al. (USP 7,882,172).
Regarding claim 1, Kodaka discloses an architecture in figure 4 that teaches: obtaining to-be-sent data (414); obtaining a plurality of data blocks based on the to-be-sent data (414); compressing a first data block (415) based on a compression mode (415) to obtain compressed first data block; and sending (416) the compressed first data block, wherein the first data block is one of the plurality of data blocks (see figure 4 and its descriptions).
Regarding claim 2, Kodaka also teaches wherein the method further comprises: sending compression mode information, wherein the compression mode information indicates the compression mode (see figure 4 and its descriptions).
Regarding claim 3, Kodaka also teaches wherein the compression mode information comprises one bit in a bitmap, and the bitmap indicates compression modes of the plurality of data blocks (see figure 4 and its descriptions).
Regarding claim 16, Kodaka et al. discloses in figure 4 a architecture that teaches: receiving (431) a compressed first data block; decompressing (432) the compressed first data block to obtain a first data block, wherein the decompressing is based on a compression mode of the first data block; and restoring (433) a plurality of data blocks into to-be-sent data (810), wherein the plurality of data blocks comprises the first data block (810) (see figure 4 and its descriptions).
Regarding claim 17, Kodaka also teaches: receiving compression mode information (431), wherein the compression mode information indicates the compression mode (see figure 4, its descriptions).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the compression mode information indicates that the compression mode is one of the following compression modes: independent compression; and reference compression, wherein the reference compression is to compress the first data block based on a previous data block.
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the previous data block is a data block that is successfully received and has a transmission time point closest to a transmission time point of the first data block, or the previous data block is a data block that is successfully received and enables a compression rate of the first data block to be highest.
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the method further comprises: sending a transmission time point of the previous data block.
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the method further comprises: receiving feedback information, wherein the feedback information indicates whether the first data block is received successfully.
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein an interval between a transmission time point of the feedback information and a transmission time point of the first data block is not less than k time units, and k is a positive integer.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the feedback information comprises information indicating that the first data block is received successfully; or the feedback information comprises information indicating that a transmission unit is received successfully, and the transmission unit is occupied by the first data block.
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein a distance between a transmission time point of the previous data block and a transmission time point of the first data block does not exceed first duration, wherein the first duration is a specified value, or the method further comprises: the method further comprises receiving or sending indication information of the first duration.
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the method further comprises: sending first information, wherein the first information is usable for determining a transmission unit occupied by the first data block or a quantity of transmission units occupied by the first data block.
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the first information comprises at least one of the: a number of a data block, among the plurality of data blocks, corresponding to a transmission unit in which the first information is located; a quantity of data blocks, among the plurality of data blocks, corresponding to the transmission unit in which the first information is located; location information of a transmission unit corresponding to a data block of the plurality of data blocks; information indicating whether a data block of the plurality of data blocks is carried in different transmission units; and information indicating that a data block of the plurality of data blocks ends.
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: receiving or sending second information, wherein the second information indicates a mapping relationship between the to-be-sent data and the plurality of data blocks.
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the second information indicates that the to-be-sent data is evenly divided into the plurality of data blocks; or the second information comprises a mapping relationship between a plurality of data segments of the to-be-sent data and a data block of the plurality of data blocks, wherein the mapping relationship is determined based on a proportion of data that is in the plurality of data segments and whose value is a specific value, and a proportion of data that corresponds to the data block and whose value is the specific value; or the to-be-sent data comprises three-dimensional data, and the second information comprises a mapping relationship between a data block of the plurality of data blocks and a coordinate range of the three-dimensional data; or the to-be-sent data comprises data of an artificial intelligence (AI} model, and the second information comprises a mapping relationship between a data block of the plurality of data blocks and a network layer of the Al model.
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the feedback information indicates that the first data block is not received successfully, and the method further comprises: sending third information, wherein the third information indicates to stop retransmitting the first data block.
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the previous data block is a data block that is successfully received and has a transmission time point closest to a transmission time point of the first data block, and or the previous data block is a data block that is successfully received and enables a compression rate of the first data block to be highest.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited references are related to instant application subject matters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM T MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-1807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-2pm eastern time.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at 571 272-2105. 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.
/LAM T MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights