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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant contends, “Even assuming, arguendo, that such a mapping were correct (which Applicant does not concede), Ovchinnikov still fails to teach or suggest “determining E check bits based on the target code length M and the N bits of the second bit sequence.” To the contrary, Ovchinnikov merely applies sequential LDPC encoding, with no disclosure of determining the number of additional check bits as a difference of a target code length and another code length. In particular, Ovchinnikov fails to disclose any step of first determining, prior to the second encoding, how many check bits are to be generated. Ovchinnikov is entirely silent on generating a quantity of check bits equal to (n2 — nl), or “the target code length M [minus] the N bits of the second bit sequence” as recited in amended claim 1.”
The Examiner disagrees and asserts that the target code length M = n2 in Ovchinnikov is a variable and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it is a number that requires a step for determining in order for the encoder to work based on channel conditions and required error correction capability. Ovchinnikov provides the abstract essentials for a serial concatenated error correction code with the clear understanding that M = n2 will be determined at the time of actual implementation based on channel conditions and protocol standard requirements.
The Examiner would like to point out that M, N and K in the Applicant’s specification are simply numbers inherent in the construction of a serially concatenated error correction code where M = n2 describes the number of bits after the code word has been encoded with an outer encoder and an inner encoder to generate the third bit sequence as in Figure 4b in the Applicant’s specification and to generate the inner codeword 325 in Figure 4 in Ovchinnikov. That is, inner codeword 325 in Ovchinnikov is an identical data structure as the third bit sequence in Figure 4b in the Applicant’s specification comprising M = n2 bits. K=k1 is the number of bits before inner and outer encoding corresponding to information bits 305 in Figure 4 in Ovchinnikov and input bits to the polar code in Figure 4b in the Applicant’s specification. N = n1 is the number of bits in the outer coded codewords 315 in Figure 4 of Ovchinnikov in the outer code word out put from polar code encoder in Figure 4b in the Applicant’s specification. Therefore, Ovchinnikov teaches A method for encoding, wherein the method comprises: obtaining a first bit sequence/information bits 305 and a target code length M = n2 bits, wherein the first bit sequence/information bits 305 comprises K=k1 information bits, K=k1 is an integer greater than or equal to 1, and M = n2 is an integer greater than or equal to 1; performing first channel encoding on the first bit sequence/information bits 305 to obtain a second bit sequence outer codeword 315 in Figure 4 of Ovchinnikov, wherein the second bit sequence/outer codeword 315 comprises N = n1 bits, and N = n1 is an integer greater than or equal to 1; determining E = n2 – n1 check bits/inner code parity checks 420 based on the target code length M = n2 bits and the N bits of the second bit sequence/outer codeword 315. wherein the E = n2 – n1 is an integer greater than or equal to 1, M = n2 > N = n1, and E=M-N = n2 – n1: performing second channel encoding/inner decoding based on the second bit sequence/outer codeword 315 and the E check sequence/information bits 305 to obtain a third bit sequence/inner codeword 325, wherein the third bit sequence/inner codeword 325 comprises the N = n1 bits and the E = n2 – n1 check sequence/information bits 305; and outputting the third bit sequence.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 07/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 or withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/23/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ovchinnikov; Andrei et al. (US 20090249163 A1, hereafter referred to as Ovchinnikov).
Rejection of claim 1:
The Examiner would like to point out that M, N and K in the Applicant’s specification are simply numbers inherent in the construction of a serially concatenated error correction code where M = n2 describes the number of bits after the code word has been encoded with an outer encoder and an inner encoder to generate the third bit sequence as in Figure 4b in the Applicant’s specification and to generate the inner codeword 325 in Figure 4 in Ovchinnikov. That is, inner codeword 325 in Ovchinnikov is an identical data structure as the third bit sequence in Figure 4b in the Applicant’s specification comprising M = n2 bits. K=k1 is the number of bits before inner and outer encoding corresponding to information bits 305 in Figure 4 in Ovchinnikov and input bits to the polar code in Figure 4b in the Applicant’s specification. N = n1 is the number of bits in the outer coded codewords 315 in Figure 4 of Ovchinnikov in the outer code word out put from polar code encoder in Figure 4b in the Applicant’s specification. Therefore, Ovchinnikov teaches A method for encoding, wherein the method comprises: obtaining a first bit sequence/information bits 305 and a target code length M = n2 bits, wherein the first bit sequence/information bits 305 comprises K=k1 information bits, K=k1 is an integer greater than or equal to 1, and M = n2 is an integer greater than or equal to 1; performing first channel encoding on the first bit sequence/information bits 305 to obtain a second bit sequence outer codeword 315 in Figure 4 of Ovchinnikov, wherein the second bit sequence/outer codeword 315 comprises N = n1 bits, and N = n1 is an integer greater than or equal to 1; determining E = n2 – n1 check bits/inner code parity checks 420 based on the target code length M = n2 bits and the N bits of the second bit sequence/outer codeword 315. wherein the E = n2 – n1 is an integer greater than or equal to 1, M = n2 > N = n1, and E=M-N = n2 – n1: performing second channel encoding/inner decoding based on the second bit sequence/outer codeword 315 and the E check sequence/information bits 305 to obtain a third bit sequence/inner codeword 325, wherein the third bit sequence/inner codeword 325 comprises the N = n1 bits and the E = n2 – n1 check sequence/information bits 305; and outputting the third bit sequence.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-88 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ovchinnikov; Andrei et al. (US 20090249163 A1, hereafter referred to as Ovchinnikov) in view of Chen; Chao et al. (US 20100251062 A1, hereafter referred to as Chen).
Rejection of claim 2, 4, 6-8:
Figure 3 and paragraph [0015]-[0016] in Chen provides a prior teaching of a parity extension matrix comprising N=6xz rows and E=6xz columns based on a lifted base matrix comprising N0=6 rows and E0=6 columns.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ovchinnikov with the teachings of Chen by including use of a parity extension matrix comprising N=6xz rows and E=6xz columns based on a lifted base matrix comprising N0=6 rows and E0=6 columns. This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that use of a parity extension matrix comprising N=6xz rows and E=6xz columns based on a lifted base matrix comprising N0=6 rows and E0=6 columns would have provided reduced complexity (Figure 3 and paragraph [0015]-[0016] in Chen).
Rejection of claim 3, 5:
Paragraph [0015]-[0016] in Chen teaches a use of a lifting value z=Z. It is an obvious design choice to pick specific values for z=Z.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 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.
The rejection of claims 1-8, above, indicate the difference between the prior art of record and claims 9-11 since dependent claims inherit all the limitations from the claims which they depend on and any intervening claims.
Citations
US 20180278369 A1 is directed to A method comprising: for use in transmitting on a channel with a channel capacity C, constructing a polar code defined by K,M,N,P,C, where K is an input information vector bit length, N is a mother polar code length, M is an output codeword bit length after puncturing using a puncturing pattern P, and C is a channel capacity, the method comprising: performing at least one iteration of polar code decomposition, performing the first iteration comprising performing code decomposition based on K,M,N,P,C defining the polar code, and performing subsequent iterations comprising two code decompositions based on (K=K0,M=M0,N=N2,P=P0,C=C0),.Math.(K=K1,M=M1,N=N2,P,P1,C=C1) of the previous iteration; wherein performing polar code decomposition comprises: determining respective input information vector bit lengths K.sub.0 and K.sub.1 for two partial polar codes of length N/2 based on the puncturing pattern P; and the method further comprising determining information bit positions for the polar code based on at least one reliability sequence and on the information bit lengths determined in a last of the at least one iteration of polar code decomposition; polar code encoding a set of information bits using a polar code encoder configured with the information bit positions determined in the last of the at least one iteration of polar code decomposition; transmitting based on a result of the polar code encoding over the channel using the constructed polar code; and, is a good teaching reference.
US 20130283131 A1 is directed to A method of generating a set of parity bits (p) from a set of information bits (s), comprising: storing information related to zxz sub-matrices of a first sub-matrix and of a second sub-matrix corresponding to a first and a second portion of a parity check matrix H of an LDPC code, respectively, to allow representation of the parity check matrix in a compressed form; and generating the set of parity bits p by appropriately multiplying, shifting and accumulating subsets from the set of information bits s based on the stored information, without decompressing the parity check matrix; and, is a good teaching reference.
US 20100251062 A1 is directed to An encoding method comprising: extending a dual diagonal structure of a base matrix of m rows and n columns along a dual diagonal, based on a coding rate 1/k of an extended code (where k=3, 4, 5, . . . , k0 holds, and where 1/k0 is a minimum coding rate of the extended code) set in a check matrix of a low density parity check code, to form an extended matrix having the dual diagonal structure; shifting a first non-zero element of a parity bit part in a (i*m.+-.1)-th (where i=1, 2, . . . , k0-2) row leftward to a (n-m+1)-th column along that row; calculating a parity bit in the (n-m+)-th column using a first check relationship as a key factor; and calculating parity bits in a plurality of groups simultaneously in parallel by a recursive encoding method, based on check relationships of the non-zero elements shifted leftward to the (n-m+1)-th column; and, was used in a 103 rejection, above
US 20090249163 A1 is directed to a method comprising: performing a first decoding for a codeword; performing a second decoding for a soft output of the first decoder; and iterating the first decoding and the second decoding as a common iteration; and, was used in 102 and 103 rejections, above.
Conclusion
Applicant's 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 JOSEPH D TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-3829. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-7 PT.
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.
/JOSEPH D TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights