Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/543,647

Communication Method and Communication Apparatus

Non-Final OA §101§102§112
Filed
Dec 18, 2023
Examiner
VAN ROIE, JUSTIN T
Art Unit
2469
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
285 granted / 345 resolved
+24.6% vs TC avg
Strong +41% interview lift
Without
With
+40.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
390
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
44.7%
+4.7% vs TC avg
§102
24.5%
-15.5% vs TC avg
§112
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 345 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102 §112
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 . 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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 6 January 2025 and 17 January 2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 12 recites the limitation “are different” in line 12. It is unclear whether the at least two second code words have code rates different from each other or different than the code rate of the at least one first code word. If the difference is between the second code words and if there are three or more second code words, do they each need to have their own unique, different code rate? Would there need to be 10 uniquely different code rates for 10 second code words? For examining purposes, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a signal per se. Step 1: Does the claim as a whole fall within any statutory category? No [In the context of the flowchart in MPEP § 2106, subsection III] Claim 21 recites, “A computer program product comprising instructions that are stored on a computer-readable medium and that, when executed by a processor, cause an apparatus to: perform … perform… generate… send…” In specification recites, as follows: ¶141 In addition, aspects or features of this application may be implemented as a method, an apparatus, or a product that uses standard programming and/or engineering technologies. The term “product” used in this application covers a computer program that can be accessed from any computer-readable component, carrier or medium. For example, a computer-readable medium may include but is not limited to: a magnetic storage device (for example, a hard disk, a floppy disk or a magnetic tape), an optical disc (for example, a compact disc (CD) and a digital versatile disc (DVD)), a smart card, and a flash memory component (for example, an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), a card, a stick, or a key drive). In addition, various storage media described in this specification may indicate one or more devices and/or other machine-readable media that are configured to store information. The term “machine-readable media” may include but is not limited to a radio channel, and various other media that can store, contain, and/or carry instructions and/or data. [Emphasis added] Analysis: First, neither claim nor specification as whole does not provide what a computer-readable medium is. The specification has provided for the term “a computer-readable medium” by providing different type of medium with a clause “but it not limited to”. Since the applicant fails inclusively and specifically provide antecedent basic to limit the specific statutory embodiments, “a computer-readable medium” belongs to the intrinsic non-statutory embodiments such as carrier signal, radio wave, light wave, and transmission medium/media. A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The BRI of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a carrier signal, radio wave, light wave, and transmission medium/media. Note that signal claims are not directed to a process since they do not cover an act or series of acts. No part of the signal is a mechanical “device” or “part”. A propagating electromagnetic signal is not a “machine” as that term is used in § 101. Signals, standing alone, are not “manufacture[s]” under the meaning of that term in § 101. A signal comprising a fluctuation in electric potential or in electromagnetic fields is not a “chemical union,” nor a gas, fluid, power, or solid. Signals are not “composition[s] of matter”. Thus, a transitory, propagating signal is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter”. Those four categories define the explicit scope and reach of subject matter patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101; thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter, (see In re Nuijten, 500 F. 3d 1356 n.7 (Fed, Cir 2007). In view of the above analysis, claim 21 is ineligible for patent protection as failing to be limited to embodiments which fall within a statutory category. Claims 18-21 are also rejected since they depend on the rejected claim set forth above. 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. Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takaoka et al. US 2010/0202386 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Takaoka”). Note: Takaoka was cited by the applicant in the IDS received 6 January 2025. As to claim 1, Takaoka teaches a method comprising: performing first encoding on at least one first code block to obtain at least one first code word, wherein each of the at least one first code block comprises a first information block and a first check block, and wherein the first check block checks the first information block (¶¶45-46, 145-146, and 148; see figures 1 and 13: encode code blocks of codeword#0 such that each encoded code block includes the original code block and respective CRC bits); performing at least one type of second encoding on at least one second code block to obtain at least one second code word, wherein the at least one second code block comprises a second information block and a second check block, and wherein the second check block checks the second information block (¶¶45-46, 145-146, and 148; see figures 1 and 13: encode code blocks of codeword#1 such that each encoded code block includes the original code block and respective CRC bits); generating a data packet comprising the at least one first code word and the at least one second code word, wherein a first code length of the first code word is greater than a second code length of the second code word (¶¶51, 76, 78-79, 84, 146, 148, and 174; see figures 1, 5, 13, and 16: map codeword#0 and codeword#1 for transmission (i.e., generate data packet), codeword#0 being larger than codeword#1); and sending the data packet (¶¶52 and 149; see figures 1 and 13: transmit the signal). As to claim 2, Takaoka teaches the communication method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining the first information block; and generating the first check block, wherein the first check block corresponds to the first information block (¶¶44-46 and 145-146; see figures 1 and 13: receive raw code block and perform CRC encoding on the raw code block to generate an encoded code block including CRC bits corresponding to the code block). As to claim 3, Takaoka teaches the communication method of claim 1, further comprising generating the second check block based on a portion of information other than the second check block in the at least one second code block (¶¶44-46 and 145-146; see figures 1 and 13: CRC bits are based on the code block, not the CRC bits themselves). As to claim 4, Takaoka teaches the communication method of claim 1, wherein the second code block comprises redundant information located before the second check block (¶¶8 and 44: transport block CRC bits before CRC bits for the code block including the transport block CRC). As to claim 5, Takaoka teaches the communication method of claim 1, wherein in the at least one second code block, the second check block is located in one or more consecutive code blocks (¶¶44-46 and 145-146; see figures 1 and 13: CRC is located in each code block). As to claim 6, Takaoka teaches the communication method of claim 1, wherein the data packet comprises L data groups, wherein the L data groups comprise L1 first data groups and one second data group, wherein each of the L1 first data groups comprises n first code words, wherein the second data group comprises the at least one second code word, and wherein L1 and n are greater than or equal to 1 (¶174; see figure 16: data groups for codeword#0 and codeword#1, codeword#0 comprising 4 code blocks, codeword#1 comprising at least one code block). As to claim 7, Takaoka teaches the communication method of claim 6, further comprising receiving L pieces of feedback information corresponding to the data packet, wherein the L pieces of feedback information correspond to the L data groups (¶¶8 and 68: receiving side decodes the data packet and feeds back a response signal including feedback for each transport block). As to claim 8, Takaoka teaches the communication method of claim 1, wherein n meets n=ceil(H/(L-1)), and wherein H is a total quantity of the at least one first code word (¶174; see figure 16: 1 = 1/1). As to claim 9, Takaoka teaches the communication method of claim 8, wherein when mod(H, (L-1))>0, the L data groups further comprise L2 third data groups, and each of the L2 third data groups comprises p first code words, wherein L2 is a positive integer less than L-L1, and p meets p=floor(H/(L-1)) (¶¶168-174; see figures 15-16: mod(3, 2) > 0 when there are 3 first codewords (2 additional first codewords so L2 = 2, which is less than 4 – 1 (total codewords minus initial first codeword)) and 1 = floor(3/2)). As to claim 10, Takaoka teaches the communication method of claim 9, wherein L-1 meets L1=mod(H, (L-1)), and wherein L2 meets L2=L-mod(H, (L-1))-1 (¶¶168-174; see figures 15-16: 1 initial first codeword = mod(3,2) and 2 additional first codewords = 4 – 1 – 1). As to claim 11, Takaoka teaches the communication method of claim 1, wherein the at least one first code word comprises a plurality of first code words each having a same code length (¶¶79, 84, and 168-174; see figures 5 and 15-16: codewords grouped into codewords having the same length). As to claim 12, Takaoka teaches the communication method of claim 1, wherein the at least one second code word comprises at least two second code words whose code rates that are different (¶¶95-115; see figures 8-9: embodiment 3 discusses methods for encoded code blocks/code words having different code rates). As to claim 13, Takaoka teaches the communication method of claim 1, wherein the at least one second code word comprises a plurality of second code words, wherein a code length sum of the plurality of second codes words is less than the first code length of the first code word (¶¶79 and 84; see figure 5: code length sum of encoded code blocks/code words #0 and #1 is less than code length of encoded code block/code word #2). As to claim 14, claim 14 is rejected the same way as claim 1. As to claim 15, claim 15 is rejected the same way as claim 2. As to claim 16, claim 16 is rejected the same way as claim 3. As to claim 17, claim 17 is rejected the same way as claim 4. As to claim 18, claim 18 is rejected the same way as claim 5. As to claim 19, claim 19 is rejected the same way as claim 6. As to claim 20, claim 20 is rejected the same way as claim 7. As to claim 21, claim 21 is rejected the same way as claim 1. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Pi et al., US 2009/0019337 A1 – Methods and Apparatus to Compute CRC for Multiple Code Blocks Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN T VAN ROIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm. 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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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. /JUSTIN T VAN ROIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 18, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 25, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598476
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OPERATION MODE ON UNLICENSED SPECTRUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12549956
OPTIMAL NEW RADIO (NR) RESOURCE ALLOCATION USING BANDWIDTH PART (BWP) ACROSS ASYMMETRIC DSS NETWORKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12543132
COORDINATED ORTHOGONAL FREQUENCY DIVISION MULTIPLE ACCESS (C-OFDMA) IN HIGH DENSITY NETWORKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12526033
APPARATUS, METHOD, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR DETERMINING A SERVING BEAM USING A MEASUREMENT REPORT POOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12507265
SIDELINK RESOURCES BASED ON INTERFERENCE CANCELATION CAPABILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+40.9%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 345 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month