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 .
Status of Claims
In the Non-Final Rejection mailed April 7, 2026, the status of claims was as follows:
Claim 6, 8, 14, 15, and 16, were 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(s) 1, 2, 10, and 18, were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU (US 20200112878 A1, corresponds to CN 111030785, cited in IDS received July 26th, 2024) in view of XHAFA (US 20090031185 A1).
Claim(s) 3, 7-8, and 11, were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU (US 20200112878 A1, corresponds to CN 111030785, cited in IDS received July 26th, 2024) in view of XHAFA (US 20090031185 A1) in view of SASAKI (US 20220417075 A1).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 12, 13, 15-16, 19, and 20, were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU (US 20200112878 A1, corresponds to CN 111030785, cited in IDS received July 26th, 2024) in view of XHAFA (US 20090031185 A1) in view of FANG (US 20090276671 A1). Claim(s) 6 and 14 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU (US 20200112878 A1, corresponds to CN 111030785, cited in IDS received July 26th, 2024) in view of XHAFA (US 20090031185 A1) in view of FANG (US 20090276671 A1) in view of LEVITSKY (US 20220069947 A1). Claim(s) 9 and 17 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU (US 20200112878 A1, corresponds to CN 111030785, cited in IDS received July 26th, 2024) in view of XHAFA (US 20090031185 A1) in view of RYU (US 20170311310 A1).
In response to the Non-Final Rejection, Applicants have amended each of independent claim(s) 1, 2, and 10, to include a limitation, “…wherein a minimum distance between constellation points in a two-dimensional constellation diagram formed by the first quadrature amplitude modulation codebook and the second quadrature amplitude modulation codebook is greater than or equal to a first threshold.”. Additional amendments were made to each of claims 7, 9, and 19. Claim(s) 3 and 11 have been cancelled. Claim(s) are 1-2, 4-10, and 12-20 are pending. Further responsive to the Non-Final Rejection, Applicants have presented arguments arguing the novelty and/or non-obviousness of the amended independent claim(s) in light of the prior art of record. The arguments will be addressed below.
Applicants argue that the prior art of record that the combination of LIU (US 20200112878 A1, corresponds to CN 111030785, cited in IDS received July 26th, 2024) in view of XHAFA (US 20090031185 A1) in view of SASAKI (US 20220417075 A1) fails to render obvious the subject matter of the amended independent claim(s) 1, 2, and 10. The arguments focus on limitation(s) of amended claim 1 as claim(s) 2 and 10 recite substantially the same features as amended claim 1. Claim 1 is recited below,
“1. (Currently Amended) A data sending method, comprising: sending, by a first device to a second device, first data modulated by using a first quadrature amplitude modulation codebook; receiving, by the first device, a message, wherein the message indicates that the second device fails to decode the first data; and sending, by the first device to the second device, second data modulated by using a second quadrature amplitude modulation codebook, wherein the second data is a subset of the first data, and the first quadrature amplitude modulation codebook is different from the second quadrature amplitude modulation codebook, wherein a minimum distance between constellation points in a two-dimensional constellation diagram formed by the first quadrature amplitude modulation codebook and the second quadrature amplitude modulation codebook is greater than or equal to a first threshold.”
Applicants argue that the prior art of record combination of LIU (US 20200112878 A1, corresponds to CN 111030785, cited in IDS received July 26th, 2024) in view of XHAFA (US 20090031185 A1) in view of SASAKI (US 20220417075 A1) fails to render obvious a feature, “…wherein a minimum distance between constellation points in a two-dimensional constellation diagram formed by the first quadrature amplitude modulation codebook and the second quadrature amplitude modulation codebook is greater than or equal to a first threshold”, as arranged with the remaining elements of claim 1. In the Non-Final Rejection, LIU and XHAFA were found to be deficient on said feature, and SASAKI was relied upon to remedy the deficiency. See where the Non-Final Rejection recites the following:
“In regards to claim 3, LIU in view of XHAFA is silent on the method according to claim 1, wherein a minimum distance between constellation points in a two-dimensional constellation diagram formed by the first quadrature amplitude modulation codebook and the second quadrature amplitude modulation codebook is greater than or equal to a first threshold.
Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving data encoding for digital transmission. SASAKI (US 20220417075 A1) teaches where a minimum distance between constellation points in a multi-dimensional constellation diagram formed by the first QAM codebook and the second QAM codebook is greater than or equal to a first threshold, minimum of d4 = 2 …
Thus, based upon the teachings of SASAKI it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data encoding feature of LIU in view of XHAFA by adopting use of a minimum distance between the constellation points of LIU, the constellation points being derivable from the first and second QAM codebooks of LIU, to thus arrive at the method according to claim 1, wherein a minimum distance between constellation points in a two-dimensional constellation diagram formed by the first quadrature amplitude modulation codebook and the second quadrature amplitude modulation codebook is greater than or equal to a first threshold. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a minimum threshold between constellation points of encoded data in order to provide a benefit of a baseline (i.e. minimum) level of reliability for the decoding of the encoded data.”
Applicants disagree with this conclusion of obviousness. Applicants further support this disagreement by distinguishing SASAKI’s teaching of where a minimum distance between constellation points in a two-dimensional constellation diagram formed by a QAM codebook is greater than equal to or greater than or equal to a first threshold (See SASAKI [Par. 70 – Par. 73]) from the claimed “…wherein a minimum distance between constellation points in a two-dimensional constellation diagram formed by the first quadrature amplitude modulation codebook and the second quadrature amplitude modulation codebook is greater than or equal to a first threshold”. See the REMARKS filed June 8, 2026, where it recites
Critically, SASAKI uses the same constellation for both time slots. SASAKI at [0072] states the first signal uses "a signal point of the first constellation in TS1 and a signal point of the first constellation in TS2." SASAKI at [0073] states the second signal uses "a signal point of the second constellation in TS1 and a signal point of the second constellation in TS2." SASAKI operates entirely within the same codebook for both time slots. Applicant's claim 1, by contrast, require two different codebooks, as explicitly recited in claim 1. This is fundamentally different from SASAKI.
Furthermore, the specific combination of claimed features enable improvements in comparison to other joint decoding/receiving features by reducing a bit error rate and thus improving accuracy of received data. These claimed features include a feature where ( “…the first quadrature amplitude modulation codebook is different from the second quadrature amplitude modulation codebook…”) where this difference is explained in [Par. 120 – Par. 122] of the Instant Application. These codebooks are different with respect to where for a same index, a first QAM codebook and a second QAM codebook map to different decimal numbers. These claimed features further include a feature (“…wherein a minimum distance between constellation in a two-dimensional constellation diagram formed by the first QAM codebook and the second QAM codebook being greater than or equal to a first threshold…”). See Instant Application which explains how these claimed features enabled the improvements in comparison to other prior art joint decoding/receiving features,
“[0126] In this application, if the first sending is performed after modulation by using S14, the second sending is performed after modulation by using S24, values sent in the two times of sending are respectively X= S14+[Ci] and Y= S24 [Ci], and a value of Ci is of [0, 15], 16 constellation points in FIG. 3 are formed. It may be calculated that a distance between two adjacent closest constellation points is equal to 2√{square root over (17)}× Δ4, in other words, a minimum distance between constellation points in a two-dimensional constellation diagram formed by S14 and S24 is greater than or equal to 2√{square root over (17)}×Δ4. In this implementation, the distance between the two adjacent constellation points in the two-dimensional constellation diagram can be nearly tripled. Therefore, in joint modulation of data, a bit error rate of data receiving can be reduced, and accuracy of the data receiving can be improved.”
In consideration of the arguments distinguishing the claimed invention from the prior art of record and further in consideration of the improvements to joint decoding provided by the claimed combination of features, claim 1 is regarded as non-obvious in light of the prior art of record. Thus claim 1 is regarded as allowable. Independent claim(s) 2 and 10 recite substantially the same features as claim 1. Claim(s) 2 and 10 are also regarded as allowable for the same reasons provided with respect to claim 1. Claim(s) 4-7, 9, 12-15, and 17-20 are also regarded as allowable by virtue of dependency on any one of the independent claims.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, Applicants have amended claim(s) and presented arguments with respect to amended claims. Although some of the issues have been resolved by amendment, indefiniteness issues still remain, these are addressed in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, below.
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 8 and 16, 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 8 recites, “…the second threshold is equal to
2
√
10
Δ2…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites, “…the third quadrature amplitude modulation codebook …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites, “…the second threshold is equal to
2
√
10
Δ2…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites, “…the third quadrature amplitude modulation codebook …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 10, 12-15, and 17-20 are allowed.
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 TARELL A HAMPTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7162. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 5712723795. 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.
/TARELL A HAMPTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2476 /AYAZ R SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights