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, see pg. 8, filed 6/8/2026, with respect to the objection to claims 5 and 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments. The objection of claims 5 and 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/2026, with respect to the 112b rejection of claims 1, 19, and 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has not presented any arguments regarding this rejection and has merely cited paragraphs 87-93 of the instant specification. The amendments to claims 1, 19, and 20 do not appear to clarify either of the two examiners concerns described in the previous action. Because the Applicant has provided no further explanation or arguments and it is not obvious to the Examiner as to why this amendment would overcome the previous rejection, Examiner maintains the previous 112B rejection. Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/2026, with respect to the 102/103 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102/103 rejections of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that “the rejection does not show how Jiang (in FIG. 20 (operation 2010)) is alleged to teach such a feature to partition a set of bits into at least two subsets of bits, prior to generating a set of decoded bits as in claim 1, as operation 2010 in Fig. 20 of Jiang is after encoding of a codeword to be transmitted. Further, the rejection has not shown how Jiang allegedly teaches any correspondence between bits subject to recursive partitioning (as noted in the rejection) and a first number of ordered permutations of each of bits in the at least two subsets of bits, respectively, as in the claim 1 recitation argued above. Examiner agrees that the newly amended claim overcomes the previous art rejection. Now that the bits are “in” the two subsets instead of just “associated” with the two subsets, the step of partitioning is required to occur before the decoding- which is not taught by Jiang.
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.
Claims 10-20 are 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 1, lines 10-12 reads “wherein the bit priority is based on a first error metric of each bit in the set of bits for a first number of ordered permutations of each of bits in the at least two subsets of bits, respectively” It is unclear whether “each of bits in the at least two subsets of bits” is equivalent to “each bit in the set of bits.” Examiner notes that claim 1 previously links these two elements together in line 6: “partition a set of bits into at least two subsets of bits.” Examiner assumes that all the bits of the original set are intended to be further contained within the at least two subsets, and if so, the claim should be updated for clarity to read: “wherein the bit priority is based on a first error metric of each bit in the set of bits for a first number of ordered permutations of each bit in the set of bits.” If all the bits of the original set are not further contained within the at least two subsets, then it is unclear how the bit priority can be based on a first error metric of each bit in the set of bits for a first number of ordered permutations for only some of the bits in the original set of bits.
It is further unclear what is exactly meant by “the bit priority is based on a first error metric of each bit in the set of bits for a first number of ordered permutations of each of bits in the at least two subsets of bits, respectively.” The relationship between the first error metric, the ordered permutations, and the two subsets of bits is unclear. Is the error metric recalculated for each bit in each permutation, or is it a static, known error metric of each bit? Does each bit somehow have its own “first number of ordered permutations?” The term “respectively” makes this limitation further unclear- is it linking the subsets of bits to the ordered permutations, implying that that each subset has its own independent “first number of ordered permutations”? Or is it merely linking the bit priority to each individual bit? Upon consultation of the specification and drawings, the examiner was unable to ascertain what exactly is meant by this limitation.
Examiner recommends splitting this long limitation up into multiple smaller parts so that the relationships and dependencies of each of the claim elements can be clearly ascertained.
Claims 19 and 20 contain similar issues and are rejected accordingly. Claims 2-18 depend on claim 1 and are therefore similarly rejected under 112B.
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 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 JACK K BARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0431. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5, F 8-4 EST.
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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at 571-270-3750. 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.
/JACK KENSINGTON BARNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2111
/MARK D FEATHERSTONE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2111
Prosecution Insights