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 .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to applicant’s amendment submitted on May 27, 2026. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-15, 19 and 20 are now currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In addition, Hu does teach “track a data subcarrier allocation pattern … rate matching buffer configured to balance data throughput based on the data subcarrier allocation pattern”. More specifically, Hu discloses the unit determining the RU configuration, where a proportional round-robin parser that distributes input bits across multiple Resource Units (RUs) using a systematic approach based on proportional rations that reflect the relative capacities of each RU. The parser begins by defining a fundamental allocation unit called “s-bits,” calculated as s = max{1, Nbpscs/2}, where Nbpscs represents the number of coded bits per subcarrier per spatial stream. This value adapts to the modulation scheme, ensuring appropriate granularity for bit distribution across different QAM configurations (paragraphs 59, 65, 74). In addition, the combination of Hu and van Nee discloses the core distribution mechanism operates through proportional ratios expressed as m0:m1:m2:…, where each coefficient represents multiples of s-bits allocated to the corresponding RU. For instance, in a 484+996 tone RU combination, the ratio is 1:2, meaning the parser alternately allocates 1xs bits to the smaller RU and 2xs bits to the larger RU in a cyclical fashion. The parser continues this round-robin pattern, moving sequentially through each RU while respecting the proportional weights (Hu; paragraphs 59, 65, 74, van Nee; column 7 lines 1-11, teaching the bit buffer).
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, 4, 7-8, and 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0227510 A1, hereinafter Hu) in view of van Nee (US Patent 7,570,697 B2).
Consider claim 1 (and similarly applied to claim 15). Hu discloses a segment parser within a wireless transmitter of a wireless device (fig. 18, paragraphs 59, 96, 99) comprising:
a controller configured to track a data subcarrier allocation pattern between a plurality of resource units (RUs) of a multiple resource unit (MRU) (paragraphs 59, 65, 74, read as the unit determining the RU configuration. A proportional round-robin parser that distributes input bits across multiple Resource Units (RUs) using a systematic approach based on proportional rations that reflect the relative capacities of each RU. The parser begins by defining a fundamental allocation unit called “s-bits,” calculated as s = max{1, Nbpscs/2}, where Nbpscs represents the number of coded bits per subcarrier per spatial stream. This value adapts to the modulation scheme, ensuring appropriate granularity for bit distribution across different QAM configurations);
wherein at least two of the plurality of RUs have a different number of subcarriers (paragraph 72, read as a 996-tone RU and an aggregation of a 242-tone and a 484-tone RU).
a rate matching
wherein the controller is configured to distribute data between each of the plurality of RUs based on a ration of a number of data subcarriers in each RU within the plurality of RUs (paragraph 74, read as parsing of coded bits to multiple RUs may be performed in a proportional round-robin fashion, with the parser ratio depending on the size (or number of tones) of each RU).
Hu substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to explicitly teach a buffer (Hu implicitly teaches the unit performing the same function).
However, van Nee teaches a buffer (column 7 lines 1-11, read as bit buffer 304. The examiner also notes that van Nee discloses a counter as is claimed in claim 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of van Nee into the invention of Hu in order to reduce the amount of information lost.
Consider claim 4 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Hu and van Nee discloses wherein the controller comprises a counter (van Nee; column 7 lines 1-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of van Nee into the invention of Hu in order to reduce the amount of information lost.
Consider claim 7 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Hu and van Nee discloses wherein the MRU comprises a first RU having 996 data subcarriers and a second RU having 448 data subcarriers or 726 data subcarriers (Hu; paragraphs 65, 82).
Consider claim 8 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Hu and van Nee discloses wherein the controller is further configured to distribute data of the MRU to a plurality of low-density parity-check (LDPC) tone mappers in a data rate that is determined by a ratio between the numbers of data subcarriers of the RUs in the MRU (Hu; paragraphs 65, 69, 82).
Consider claim 19 and as applied to claim 15. The combination of Hu and van Nee discloses wherein the MRU comprises a first RU having 996 data subcarriers and a second RU having 448 data subcarriers or 726 data subcarriers (Hu; paragraphs 65, 82).
Consider claim 20 and as applied to claim 15. The combination of Hu and van Nee discloses wherein using the counter or the FSM of the segment parser, tracking the data subcarrier allocation pattern of the MRU comprises distributing data of the MRU to a plurality of low-density parity-check (LDPC) tone mappers in a data rate that is determined by a ratio between the numbers of data subcarriers of the RUs in the MRU (Hu; paragraphs 65, 69, 82).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0227510 A1, hereinafter Hu) in view of van Nee (US Patent 7,570,697 B2) in view of Xu et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0116002 A1, hereinafter Xu).
Consider claim 5 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Hu and van Nee discloses the claimed invention but fail to teach wherein the controller comprises a finite state machine (FSM).
However, Xu teaches wherein the controller comprises a finite state machine (FSM) (paragraph 311).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Xu into the invention of Hu and van Nee in order to reduce the complexity of hardware implementation.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0227510 A1, hereinafter Hu) in view of van Nee (US Patent 7,570,697 B2) in view of Shinohara et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0036394 A1, hereinafter Shinohara).
Consider claim 9 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Hu and van Nee discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein the controller is further configured to control an allocation of data of the MRU to be sent to a respective low-density parity-check (LDPC) tone mapper and to determine a memory address for storing the data of the MRU.
However, Shinohara teaches wherein the controller is further configured to control an allocation of data of the MRU to be sent to a respective low-density parity-check (LDPC) tone mapper and to determine a memory address for storing the data of the MRU (paragraph 409).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Shinohara into the invention of Hu and van Nee in order to provide a transmission method and a reception device that can ensure good communication quality.
Consider claim 12 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Hu and van Nee discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein the rate matching buffer comprises a 12-bit rate matching buffer to support up to 4096 quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM).
However, Shinohara teaches wherein the rate matching buffer comprises a 12-bit rate matching buffer to support up to 4096 quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) (paragraph 707).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Shinohara into the invention of Hu and van Nee in order to provide a transmission method and a reception device that can ensure good communication quality.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0227510 A1, hereinafter Hu) in view of van Nee (US Patent 7,570,697 B2) in view of Wang et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0351879 A1, hereinafter Wang).
Consider claim 10 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Hu and van Nee discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein the controller is further configured to control the rate matching buffer to store data from a stream parser and to send stored data to a respective low-density parity-check (LDPC) tone mapper.
However, Wang teaches wherein the controller is further configured to control the rate matching buffer to store data from a stream parser and to send stored data to a respective low-density parity-check (LDPC) tone mapper (paragraphs 43, 45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Wang into the invention of Hu and van Nee in order to provide a means to reduce system energy and increase bandwidth.
Consider claim 11 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Hu and van Nee discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein the rate matching buffer is further configured to latch a plurality of residual bits at different output rates between a plurality of low-density parity-check (LDPC) tone mappers (paragraph 43).
However, Wang teaches wherein the rate matching buffer is further configured to latch a plurality of residual bits at different output rates between a plurality of low-density parity-check (LDPC) tone mappers
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Wang into the invention of Hu and van Nee in order to provide a means to reduce system energy and increase bandwidth.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 ae allowed over the prior art. More specifically, Hu, van Nee, the other cited references, and a thorough search in the art fail to explicitly or implicitly disclose the specific combination of a wireless transmitter comprising: a plurality of scramblers configured to perform a plurality of scramble operations on input data to generate scrambled input data; at least one low-density parity-check (LDPC) encoder configured to perform an encoding operation on the scrambled input data to generated encoded data; a bit alignment unit configured to perform a bit alignment operation on the encoded data to generate aligned data; a stream parser configured to perform a stream parser operation on the aligned data to generate a plurality of data streams; a plurality of segment parsers, wherein at least one of the segment parsers comprises a controller configured to track a data subcarrier allocation pattern of a multiple resource unit (MRU) that correspond to the data streams and a rate matching buffer configured to balance data throughput based on the data subcarrier allocation pattern of the MRU; and a plurality of LDPC tone mappers configured to perform a tone mapping operation based on the data throughput from the segment parsers.
Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art
Wu et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0281363 A1, hereinafter Wu) is relevant prior art not applied in the rejections above. Wu discloses an electronic device that transmits an orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA) frame to a recipient electronic device (such as a client or a station). The OFDMA frame includes multiple predefined resource units (RUs) allocated to the recipient electronic device in a set of predefined RUs having associated frequency bandwidths. Moreover, the multiple predefined RUs include two or more first predefined RUs having a first number of tones less than a predefined amount, or two or more second predefined RUs having a second number of tones greater than or equal to the predefined amount. For example, the predefined amount may include 242 tones. Note that the multiple predefined RUs may have the same or different numbers of tones.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher M. Brandt whose telephone number is (571) 270-1098. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached on (571) 272-7795. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 September 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights