DETAILED ACTION
Applicants’ response filed 9/4/26 has been considered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-20 remain rejected.
New grounds of rejection are presented in view of amendments.
The concept transmitting only parity bits/redundancy version in response to a NAK is not a novel concept.
Application is pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugai et al. USPAP 20230327801A1 (herein: D1) in view of Ko et al. USPN 10,003,470B2 (herein: D2) further in view of Yu et al. USPAP 20210391958A1 (herein: D3).
PNG
media_image1.png
341
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 1, D1 substantially teaches (i.e., title, abstract and Figure 4 above) a method, comprising: encoding a first data block using first and second Forward Error Correction (FEC) codes to generate, respectively, first and second sets of parity symbols (i.e., Figure 4, first FEC encoding unit 103 and second FEC encoding unit 105 and paragraph 0048); transmitting, over a data link, the first data block accompanied by the first set of parity symbols to a link partner (i.e., Figure 6, base station transmission device 100 transmitting first FEC encoding and paragraphs 0078-0093); transmitting the second set of parity symbols to the link partner (i.e., Figure 6, base station transmission device 100 transmitting second FEC encoding and paragraphs 0078-0093); and in response to receiving, from the link partner, a retransmission request (i.e., Figure 6, base station transmission device 100 receiving NACK S15 and paragraphs 0078-0093), retransmitting the first data block accompanied by the first set of parity symbols to the link partner (i.e., Figure 6, base station transmission device 100 retransmitting first FEC encoding and paragraphs 0078-0093).
D1 does not explicitly teach receiving, from the link partner, a request for the second set of parity symbols as stated in the present application. However D2 teaches in an analogous art (i.e., abstract) transmitting and receiving data, which is performed by a terminal, includes: transmitting first data to each of a plurality of reception terminals connected to the terminal, the first data including a source data segment and a parity data segment; determining second data to be transmitted after the first data, based on feedback information that relates to the first data and is received from each of the plurality of reception terminals; and transmitting the determined second data to each of the plurality of reception terminals.
PNG
media_image2.png
486
437
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Specifically D2 teaches (i.e., Figure 2, S220 above) to receiving, from the link partner, a request for the second set of parity symbols. D2 teaches in operation S220, the transmission terminal 110 may determine second data to be transmitted after the first data has been transmitted by using the feedback information that relates to the first data, which is received from the plurality of reception terminals 120, 130, and 140. The transmission terminal 110 may receive the feedback information that relates to the first data from each of the plurality of reception terminals 120, 130, and 140. The transmission terminal 110 according to the present exemplary embodiment may determine the second data based on at least one selected from among a data loss rate, an RTT, and a data reception rate, which are included in the received feedback information. For example, the transmission terminal 110 may determine a suitable number of second parity data segments for restoring the second source data segment to be included in the second data. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to include in D1 the step of receiving , from the link partner, a request for the second set of parity symbols before transmitting the second parity bits as suggested by D2. This would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art because one having ordinary skill would have recognized that by waiting to receive the request for the second set of parity symbols would having reduced unnecessary transmission of extra parity bits if the first transmission did not require the second parity bits.
D1 and D2 do not explicitly teach the concept of transmitting only the first parity/redundancy absent of the second parity/redundancy and based on a NAK/uncorrectable error to transmit only the second parity/redundancy version wherein the second parity/redundancy is longer than the first parity/redundancy as stated in the present application as amended. However D3 substantially teaches (i.e., abstract) an adaptive transmission method for satellite communication. First, a receive end determines a redundancy version index; second, the receive end feeds back a redundancy version index signal to a transmit end; then, the transmit end receives the redundancy version index fed back by the receive end, and performs operations such as demodulation and decoding on the redundancy version index signal, to obtain the redundancy version index; and then, the transmit end obtains a corresponding redundancy version combination based on the obtained redundancy version index; and finally, the transmit end selects a proper diversity mode for transmission based on the obtained redundancy version combination. Particularly, D3 teaches (i.e., Figure 2 below and paragraphs 0046-0058) after channel coding is performed on an information bit sequence, a systematic bit sequence, a first parity bit sequence, and a second parity bit sequence are output. The output bit sequences are interleaved and then inserted into a circular buffer. The systematic bit sequence is first inserted, and then the first parity bit sequence and the second parity bit sequence are alternately inserted. That redundancy versions RVs are different means that bits to be sent are extracted from different starting positions of the circular buffer. For example, turbo coding is used for channel coding on a DL-SCH and a UL-SCH. Systematic bits in the turbo coding are more important than parity bits, and at least all systematic bits and some parity bits need to be included in an initial transmission. However, in a retransmission, parity bits that are not included in the initial transmission are included. If quality of the received bits in the initial transmission (that is, the first transmission) is very poor or the bits are not received at all in the initial transmission, performance of the retransmission of the redundancy version RV carrying only the parity bit (parity bit) is not as good as that of the retransmission of the redundancy version RV including all (or some) systematic bits. In this case, there are two different negative acknowledgments: a NACK and a DTX. The NACK requires a retransmission of additional parity bits, while the DTX requires a retransmission of the systematic bits. In conclusion, it is important to determine, based on signal quality in a previous transmission attempt, how many systematic bits and parity bits are included in the retransmission. A plurality of redundancy versions may be obtained by combining a systematic bit sequence and a parity bit sequence in a specific manner. Optionally, the plurality of redundancy versions may be a combination of all systematic bits and all or some parity bits. Optionally, the plurality of redundancy versions may alternatively be a combination of all or some bits in first parity bits and all or some bits in second parity bits. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of D3 with those of D2 and D1. This would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill because one of ordinary skill would have recognized that by transmitting only the second parity/redundancy version would have reduced the overall amount of bandwidth for the communication system.
PNG
media_image3.png
290
720
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As per claim 2, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, the second FEC code is stronger than the first FEC code; or the second set of parity symbols is longer than the first set of parity symbols (i.e., Figure 3 and paragraph 0053).
As per claim 3, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, the first or second FEC code comprises a Reed-Solomon (RS) code (i.e., Figure 4 and paragraph 0047).
As per claim 4, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, the data link implements link-level retransmission (LLR), and wherein the retransmission request comprises an LLR negative acknowledgment (NACK) message (i.e., Figure 6, S15 and paragraph 0088).
As per claim 5, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, receiving the LLR NACK message from the link partner in response to the link partner detecting uncorrectable errors in the first data block based on the second set of parity symbols (i.e., Figure 6, S15 and paragraph 0088).
As per claim 6, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, the first data block is associated with a first data stream, and wherein the method further comprises encoding and transmitting, to the link partner, a second data block associated with a second data stream (i.e., Figure 6, first FEC encoding and second FEC encoding).
As per claim 7, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, the first data block, the second data block, and the second set of parity symbols are transmitted sequentially in an order based on availability (i.e., Figure 6, first FEC encoding and second FEC encoding).
PNG
media_image1.png
341
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 9, D1 substantially teaches (i.e., title, abstract and Figure 4 above) a network node, comprising: a first Forward Error Correction (FEC) encoder to encode a first data block using a first FEC code to generate a first set of parity symbols (i.e., Figure 4, first FEC encoding unit and paragraph 0050); a second FEC encoder to encode the first data block using a second FEC code to generate a second set of parity symbols (i.e., Figure 4, second FEC encoding unit and paragraph 0058); and a transmitter (i.e., Figure 4 communication unit 106) to: transmit, over a data link, the first data block accompanied by the first set of parity symbols to a link partner (i.e., Figure 6, base station transmission device 100 transmitting first FEC encoding and paragraphs 0078-0093); transmit the second set of parity symbols to the link partner (i.e., Figure 6, base station transmission device 100 transmitting second FEC encoding and paragraphs 0078-0093); and in response to receiving, from the link partner, a retransmission request (i.e., Figure 6, base station transmission device 100 receiving NACK S15 and paragraphs 0078-0093), retransmitting the first data block accompanied by the first set of parity symbols to the link partner (i.e., Figure 6, base station transmission device 100 retransmitting first FEC encoding and paragraphs 0078-0093).
D1 does not explicitly teach receiving, from the link partner, a request for the second set of parity symbols as stated in the present application. However D2 teaches in an analogous art (i.e., abstract) transmitting and receiving data, which is performed by a terminal, includes: transmitting first data to each of a plurality of reception terminals connected to the terminal, the first data including a source data segment and a parity data segment; determining second data to be transmitted after the first data, based on feedback information that relates to the first data and is received from each of the plurality of reception terminals; and transmitting the determined second data to each of the plurality of reception terminals.
PNG
media_image2.png
486
437
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Specifically D2 teaches (i.e., Figure 2, S220 above) to receiving, from the link partner, a request for the second set of parity symbols. D2 teaches in operation S220, the transmission terminal 110 may determine second data to be transmitted after the first data has been transmitted by using the feedback information that relates to the first data, which is received from the plurality of reception terminals 120, 130, and 140. The transmission terminal 110 may receive the feedback information that relates to the first data from each of the plurality of reception terminals 120, 130, and 140. The transmission terminal 110 according to the present exemplary embodiment may determine the second data based on at least one selected from among a data loss rate, an RTT, and a data reception rate, which are included in the received feedback information. For example, the transmission terminal 110 may determine a suitable number of second parity data segments for restoring the second source data segment to be included in the second data. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to include in D1 the step of receiving , from the link partner, a request for the second set of parity symbols before transmitting the second parity bits as suggested by D2. This would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art because one having ordinary skill would have recognized that by waiting to receive the request for the second set of parity symbols would having reduced unnecessary transmission of extra parity bits if the first transmission did not require the second parity bits.
D1 and D2 do not explicitly teach the concept of transmitting only the first parity/redundancy absent of the second parity/redundancy and based on a NAK/uncorrectable error to transmit only the second parity/redundancy version wherein the second parity/redundancy is longer than the first parity/redundancy as stated in the present application as amended. However D3 substantially teaches (i.e., abstract) an adaptive transmission method for satellite communication. First, a receive end determines a redundancy version index; second, the receive end feeds back a redundancy version index signal to a transmit end; then, the transmit end receives the redundancy version index fed back by the receive end, and performs operations such as demodulation and decoding on the redundancy version index signal, to obtain the redundancy version index; and then, the transmit end obtains a corresponding redundancy version combination based on the obtained redundancy version index; and finally, the transmit end selects a proper diversity mode for transmission based on the obtained redundancy version combination. Particularly, D3 teaches (i.e., Figure 2 below and paragraphs 0046-0058) after channel coding is performed on an information bit sequence, a systematic bit sequence, a first parity bit sequence, and a second parity bit sequence are output. The output bit sequences are interleaved and then inserted into a circular buffer. The systematic bit sequence is first inserted, and then the first parity bit sequence and the second parity bit sequence are alternately inserted. That redundancy versions RVs are different means that bits to be sent are extracted from different starting positions of the circular buffer. For example, turbo coding is used for channel coding on a DL-SCH and a UL-SCH. Systematic bits in the turbo coding are more important than parity bits, and at least all systematic bits and some parity bits need to be included in an initial transmission. However, in a retransmission, parity bits that are not included in the initial transmission are included. If quality of the received bits in the initial transmission (that is, the first transmission) is very poor or the bits are not received at all in the initial transmission, performance of the retransmission of the redundancy version RV carrying only the parity bit (parity bit) is not as good as that of the retransmission of the redundancy version RV including all (or some) systematic bits. In this case, there are two different negative acknowledgments: a NACK and a DTX. The NACK requires a retransmission of additional parity bits, while the DTX requires a retransmission of the systematic bits. In conclusion, it is important to determine, based on signal quality in a previous transmission attempt, how many systematic bits and parity bits are included in the retransmission. A plurality of redundancy versions may be obtained by combining a systematic bit sequence and a parity bit sequence in a specific manner. Optionally, the plurality of redundancy versions may be a combination of all systematic bits and all or some parity bits. Optionally, the plurality of redundancy versions may alternatively be a combination of all or some bits in first parity bits and all or some bits in second parity bits. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of D3 with those of D2 and D1. This would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill because one of ordinary skill would have recognized that by transmitting only the second parity/redundancy version would have reduced the overall amount of bandwidth for the communication system.
PNG
media_image3.png
290
720
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As per claim 10, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, second FEC code is stronger than the first FEC code; or the second set of parity symbols is longer than the first set of parity symbols (i.e., Figure 3 and paragraph 0053).
As per claim 11, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, the first or second FEC code comprises a Reed-Solomon (RS) code (i.e., Figure 4 and paragraph 0047).
As per claim 12, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, the data link implements link-level retransmission (LLR), and wherein the retransmission request comprises an LLR negative acknowledgment (NACK) message (i.e., Figure 6, S15 and paragraph 0088).
As per claim 13, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, the LLR NACK message is received from the link partner in response to the link partner detecting uncorrectable errors in the first data block encoded based on the second set of parity symbols (i.e., Figure 6, S15 and paragraph 0088).
As per claim 14, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, the first data block is associated with a first data stream, and wherein the method further comprises encoding and transmitting a second data block associated with a second data stream to the link partner (i.e., Figure 6, first FEC encoding and second FEC encoding).
As per claim 15, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, the transmitter is to transmit the first data block, the second data block, and the second set of parity symbols sequentially in an order based on availability (i.e., Figure 6, first FEC encoding and second FEC encoding).
PNG
media_image1.png
341
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 17, D1 substantially teaches a method (i.e., title, abstract and Figure 4 above), comprising: receiving, at a network node from a link partner, a first data block accompanied by a first set of parity symbols generated using a first Forward Error Correction (FEC) code (i.e., Figure 4, first FEC encoding unit and paragraph 0050); in response to detecting uncorrectable errors in the first data block based on the first set of parity symbols (i.e., Figure 6, NACK S15); receiving the second set of parity symbols (i.e., Figure 4, second FEC encoding unit and paragraph 0058); in response to detecting uncorrectable errors in the first data block based on the second set of parity symbols (i.e., Figure 6, base station transmission device 100 receiving NACK S15 and paragraphs 0078-0093), sending a retransmission request to the link partner (i.e., Figure 6, base station transmission device 100 receiving NACK S15 and paragraphs 0078-0093); and receiving retransmitted first data block accompanied by the first set of parity symbols (i.e., Figure 6, base station transmission device 100 retransmitting first FEC encoding and paragraphs 0078-0093).
D1 does not explicitly teach receiving, from the link partner, a request for the second set of parity symbols as stated in the present application. However D2 teaches in an analogous art (i.e., abstract) transmitting and receiving data, which is performed by a terminal, includes: transmitting first data to each of a plurality of reception terminals connected to the terminal, the first data including a source data segment and a parity data segment; determining second data to be transmitted after the first data, based on feedback information that relates to the first data and is received from each of the plurality of reception terminals; and transmitting the determined second data to each of the plurality of reception terminals.
PNG
media_image2.png
486
437
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Specifically D2 teaches (i.e., Figure 2, S220 above) to receiving, from the link partner, a request for the second set of parity symbols. D2 teaches in operation S220, the transmission terminal 110 may determine second data to be transmitted after the first data has been transmitted by using the feedback information that relates to the first data, which is received from the plurality of reception terminals 120, 130, and 140. The transmission terminal 110 may receive the feedback information that relates to the first data from each of the plurality of reception terminals 120, 130, and 140. The transmission terminal 110 according to the present exemplary embodiment may determine the second data based on at least one selected from among a data loss rate, an RTT, and a data reception rate, which are included in the received feedback information. For example, the transmission terminal 110 may determine a suitable number of second parity data segments for restoring the second source data segment to be included in the second data. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to include in D1 the step of receiving , from the link partner, a request for the second set of parity symbols before transmitting the second parity bits as suggested by D2. This would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art because one having ordinary skill would have recognized that by waiting to receive the request for the second set of parity symbols would having reduced unnecessary transmission of extra parity bits if the first transmission did not require the second parity bits.
D1 and D2 do not explicitly teach the concept of transmitting only the first parity/redundancy absent of the second parity/redundancy and based on a NAK/uncorrectable error to transmit only the second parity/redundancy version wherein the second parity/redundancy is longer than the first parity/redundancy as stated in the present application as amended. However D3 substantially teaches (i.e., abstract) an adaptive transmission method for satellite communication. First, a receive end determines a redundancy version index; second, the receive end feeds back a redundancy version index signal to a transmit end; then, the transmit end receives the redundancy version index fed back by the receive end, and performs operations such as demodulation and decoding on the redundancy version index signal, to obtain the redundancy version index; and then, the transmit end obtains a corresponding redundancy version combination based on the obtained redundancy version index; and finally, the transmit end selects a proper diversity mode for transmission based on the obtained redundancy version combination. Particularly, D3 teaches (i.e., Figure 2 below and paragraphs 0046-0058) after channel coding is performed on an information bit sequence, a systematic bit sequence, a first parity bit sequence, and a second parity bit sequence are output. The output bit sequences are interleaved and then inserted into a circular buffer. The systematic bit sequence is first inserted, and then the first parity bit sequence and the second parity bit sequence are alternately inserted. That redundancy versions RVs are different means that bits to be sent are extracted from different starting positions of the circular buffer. For example, turbo coding is used for channel coding on a DL-SCH and a UL-SCH. Systematic bits in the turbo coding are more important than parity bits, and at least all systematic bits and some parity bits need to be included in an initial transmission. However, in a retransmission, parity bits that are not included in the initial transmission are included. If quality of the received bits in the initial transmission (that is, the first transmission) is very poor or the bits are not received at all in the initial transmission, performance of the retransmission of the redundancy version RV carrying only the parity bit (parity bit) is not as good as that of the retransmission of the redundancy version RV including all (or some) systematic bits. In this case, there are two different negative acknowledgments: a NACK and a DTX. The NACK requires a retransmission of additional parity bits, while the DTX requires a retransmission of the systematic bits. In conclusion, it is important to determine, based on signal quality in a previous transmission attempt, how many systematic bits and parity bits are included in the retransmission. A plurality of redundancy versions may be obtained by combining a systematic bit sequence and a parity bit sequence in a specific manner. Optionally, the plurality of redundancy versions may be a combination of all systematic bits and all or some parity bits. Optionally, the plurality of redundancy versions may alternatively be a combination of all or some bits in first parity bits and all or some bits in second parity bits. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of D3 with those of D2 and D1. This would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill because one of ordinary skill would have recognized that by transmitting only the second parity/redundancy version would have reduced the overall amount of bandwidth for the communication system.
PNG
media_image3.png
290
720
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As per claim 18, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, the second FEC code is stronger than the first FEC code, and wherein the second set of parity symbols is longer than the first set of parity symbols, and wherein the first or second FEC code comprises a Reed- Solomon (RS) code (i.e., Figure 4 and paragraph 0047).
As per claim 19, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, the data link implements link-level retransmission (LLR), and wherein the retransmission request comprises an LLR negative acknowledgment (NACK) message (i.e., Figure 6, S15 and paragraph 0088).
As per claim 20, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, the first data block is associated with a first data stream, and wherein the method further comprises receiving, from the link partner, a second data block associated with a second data stream (i.e., Figure 6, first FEC encoding and second FEC encoding).
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUJTABA M CHAUDRY whose telephone number is (571)272-3817. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Albert DeCady can be reached at 571-272-3819. 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.
MUJTABA M. CHAUDRY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2112
/MUJTABA M CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights