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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Miyazaki (US 2008/0301518).
Regarding claim 1, Miyazaki discloses a retransmission method (fig. 9), wherein the method comprises: obtaining a first bit sequence (fig. 9, C0) and a number E of bits to be retransmitted (fig. 9, C1; note: K+M0 bits in an initial transmission C0 that are retransmitted), wherein the first bit sequence (fig. 9, C0) is obtained by performing first channel encoding based on K information bits (fig. 9, C0 is formed by adding M0 parity bits to K information bits as an encoding to send data on a channel; fig. 7, item 30; fig. 7, item 12; note: input of K information bits to an LDPC encoder that outputs N bits), a length of the first bit sequence is N (fig. 7, item 12; note; output of N bits; fig. 9, C0 with K information bits plus M0 parity bits), and N, E, and K are positive integers; performing second channel encoding based on the first bit sequence to obtain a second bit sequence (fig. 9, C1 is C0 plus APB1 parity bits), wherein the second bit sequence comprises the E bits (fig. 9, K bits are retransmitted within C1; note: E is less than the number of bits of the second bit sequence); and performing retransmission based on the second bit sequence (fig. 9, retransmission of K+M0 bits using C1).
Regarding claim 2, Miyazaki discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the performing second channel encoding based on the first bit sequence comprises: performing second channel encoding based on the first bit sequence and an extended matrix (fig. 22; figs. 3 and 5, H1; fig. 2, items 11-12 and WOT1), wherein the extended matrix comprises E rows and N columns (figs. 3, 5 and 22; note: the number of rows in H1 is K (i.e., 10), the extended matrix is obtained based on an extended base matrix (figs. 3, 5 and 22, H0; note: the initial matrix in a base matrix that will be extended to be the extended matrix; para. 62), the extended base matrix comprises Eo rows and No columns (K/2 or k/2 or 5 rows, and K+M0 or k+m0 columns), and Eo and No are positive integers.
Regarding claim 3, Miyazaki discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein a lifting size Z of the extended base matrix is a prime number or Z=2", wherein n is an integer greater than or equal to 0 (figs. 3, 5 and 22; note: the extended matrix H1 has twice the rows of matrix H0 where Z=2 and 2 is a prime number and n=1).
Regarding claim 4, Miyazaki discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein Z=N/No, and Z is the lifting size of the extended base matrix (figs. 3, 5 and 22; note: the extended matrix H1 has twice the rows of matrix H0 where 2 is a prime number and n=1).
Regarding claim 7, Miyazaki discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein a weight of a row of the extended matrix is correlated to N, K, and E (figs. 3 and 5 and para. 128; note: a weight of a row having non-zero elements is correlated to K such that the weight is between 0 and K, where N and E are a function of K and are correlated to the weight (i.e., a larger K allows for a larger weight, N and E).
Regarding claim 8, Miyazaki discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein the weight of the row of the extended matrix satisfies one or more of the following relationships: .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0013901).
Miyazaki discloses an expansion matrix (figs. 3, 5 and 22) having a Z of 2 (figs. 3, 5 and 22; note: the extended matrix H1 has twice the rows of matrix H0) but fails to disclose the method according to claim 3, wherein Z=16. Li discloses this feature (paras. 71 and 73; para. 7; note: LPDC code determined by a base matric and lifting size of Z). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Z=16 in the invention of Miyazaki. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing an appropriate LDPC code as is known in the art (Li, paras. 4-7, 71 and 73; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki in view of Choi et al. (US 2008/0082890).
Miyazaki discloses an expansion matrix (figs. 3, 5 and 22; note: lifting size of 2) and a second retransmission (fig. 9) but fails to disclose the method according to claim 2, wherein the E rows of the extended matrix are the first E rows of a first matrix retransmission matrices where a subsequent matrix is an expansion of a previous matrix (fig. 3; para. 57-59; note: “are the first rows” in the broadest reasonable interpretation is “including the first rows”; note: a lifting size is related to an encoding rate as noted in para. 56). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the E rows of the extended matrix are the first E rows of a first matrix .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
Claims 9-12 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. Jiang et al. (US 2019/0044540) discloses identifying locations of information bits based on a reliability sequence (para. 335).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights