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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, Figure 2, claims 1-11, 23-27, 31-44 in the reply filed on 06/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-22, 28-30 have been cancelled as being drawn to a nonelected Species II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/19/2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: “means for” in claims 42, 43.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 23, 24, 26, 36- 38, 40, 42, 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi (US 2023/0232421 A1) in view of Gunduz (US 2021/0319286 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yi discloses a wireless device (e.g. Fig. 15), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device (e.g Fig. 15 and Paragraph [0207]) to: scramble a message sequence based at least in part on a scrambling configuration (e.g. Fig. 16a, Fig. 16c, Paragraph [02016, 0218]); modulate the scrambled message sequence to generate a codeword (e.g. Fig. 16c and Paragraph [0218]); and transmit a signal based at least in part on the codeword (e.g. Fig. 16c, and Paragraph [0218]).
Although Yi discloses modulate the scrambled message sequence to generate a codeword (e.g. Fig. 16c and Paragraph [0218]); it fails to explicitly disclose to encode the scrambled message sequence based at least in part on a non- linear channel encoder configured to encode and to generate a codeword.
However, Gunduz teaches to encode the scrambled message sequence based at least in part on a non-linear channel encoder configured to encode (e.g. Fig. 2 Joint source channel coding autoencoder, Paragraph [0161]) and to generate a codeword (e.g. Paragraph [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of the invention to incorporate the coder as taught as Gunduz into device of Yi in order to efficiently and reliably send data over a communication channel at a high rate as possible with fewer errors.
Regarding Claims 2, 24, 38, 43, Yi discloses to communicate the scrambling configuration, the scrambling configuration indicating a change of a scrambling sequence between transmissions, wherein scrambling the message sequence comprises scrambling the message sequence in accordance with the scrambling sequence (e.g. Fig. 13A, Paragraph [0177, 0178]).
Regarding Claims 6, 26, 40, Yi discloses scrambling the message sequence is performed to reduce a per-message block error rate (BLER) spread of a set of message sequences that includes the message sequence (e.g. Paragraph [0173]).
Regarding Claims 11, 36, Gunduz further teaches the non-linear channel encoder is an artificial intelligence-based channel encoder (e.g. Fig. 2 Joint source channel coding autoencoder, Paragraph [0161]).
Regarding Claim 23, Yi discloses a method for wireless communications at a wireless device (e.g. Paragraph [0042]), comprising: scramble a message sequence based at least in part on a scrambling configuration (e.g. Fig. 16a, Fig. 16c, Paragraph [02016, 0218]); modulate the scrambled message sequence to generate a codeword (e.g. Fig. 16c and Paragraph [0218]); and transmit a signal based at least in part on the codeword (e.g. Fig. 16c, and Paragraph [0218]).
Although Yi discloses modulate the scrambled message sequence to generate a codeword (e.g. Fig. 16c and Paragraph [0218]); it fails to explicitly disclose to encode the scrambled message sequence based at least in part on a non- linear channel encoder configured to encode and to generate a codeword.
However, Gunduz teaches to encode the scrambled message sequence based at least in part on a non-linear channel encoder configured to encode (e.g. Fig. 2 Joint source channel coding autoencoder, Paragraph [0161]) and to generate a codeword (e.g. Paragraph [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of the invention to incorporate the coder as taught as Gunduz into method of Yi in order to efficiently and reliably send data over a communication channel at a high rate as possible with fewer errors.
Regarding Claim 37, Yi discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communications (e.g. Paragraph [0213]), the code comprising instructions executable by one or more processors to: scramble a message sequence based at least in part on a scrambling configuration (e.g. Fig. 16a, Fig. 16c, Paragraph [02016, 0218]); modulate the scrambled message sequence to generate a codeword (e.g. Fig. 16c and Paragraph [0218]); and transmit a signal based at least in part on the codeword (e.g. Fig. 16c, and Paragraph [0218]).
Although Yi discloses modulate the scrambled message sequence to generate a codeword (e.g. Fig. 16c and Paragraph [0218]); it fails to explicitly disclose to encode the scrambled message sequence based at least in part on a non- linear channel encoder configured to encode and to generate a codeword.
However, Gunduz teaches to encode the scrambled message sequence based at least in part on a non-linear channel encoder configured to encode (e.g. Fig. 2 Joint source channel coding autoencoder, Paragraph [0161]) and to generate a codeword (e.g. Paragraph [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of the invention to incorporate the coder as taught as Gunduz into method of Yi in order to efficiently and reliably send data over a communication channel at a high rate as possible with fewer errors.
Regarding Claim 42, Yi discloses a wireless device (e.g. Fig. 15), comprising: means for scrambling a message sequence based at least in part on a scrambling configuration (e.g. Fig. 16a, Fig. 16c, Paragraph [02016, 0218]); means for modulating the scrambled message sequence to generate a codeword (e.g. Fig. 16c and Paragraph [0218]); and means for transmitting a signal based at least in part on the codeword (e.g. Fig. 16c, and Paragraph [0218]).
Although Yi discloses to modulate the scrambled message sequence to generate a codeword (e.g. Fig. 16c and Paragraph [0218]); it fails to explicitly disclose to encode the scrambled message sequence based at least in part on a non- linear channel encoder configured to encode and to generate a codeword.
However, Gunduz teaches to encode the scrambled message sequence based at least in part on a non-linear channel encoder configured to encode (e.g. Fig. 2 Joint source channel coding autoencoder, Paragraph [0161]) and to generate a codeword (e.g. Paragraph [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of the invention to incorporate the coder as taught as Gunduz into device of Yi in order to efficiently and reliably send data over a communication channel at a high rate as possible with fewer errors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7-10, 25, 27, 31-35, 39, 41, 44 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lei (US 2021/0219296 A1), discloses modified downlink control information;
Ly (US 2019/0007179 A1), discloses demodulation reference signals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YULIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-1043. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM - 6PM.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
/YULIN SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights