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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The substitute specification filed 07/17/2024 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 10-13 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 6, each occurrence of “Manner” in line 3 and line 5 should be replaced by “manner”, respectively.
As per claim 10, see claim 6.
Claim 11, recites “fifth sequence” in line 2 with no recitation to third and fourth sequences;
Claim 11 recites “second time unit” in line 3 with no previous limitation to “first time unit”. It appears that the dependency was intended to be on claim 4 as opposed to claim 1.
As per claim 18, the claim recites “a fourth sequence” in line 2 with no previous limitation to “a third sequence”. It appears that the dependency was intended to be on claim 17 as opposed to claim 14.
Claims 12-13 are objected for being dependent on an objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-10 and 19 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 5, line 4, “the second device” lacks of proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 6 and line 7, “the clock frequency accuracy”, “the second device” and “the demodulation-allowed error ratio”, each lacks of proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7, lines 2-3, “the first time unit” and “the third sequence”, each lacks of proper antecedent basis. It appears that the dependency was intended to be “claim 4” as opposed to “claim 1”.
As per claim 8, lines 3-5, the following limitations of “the quantity N of bits”, “the clock frequency accuracy”, “the demodulation-allowed error ratio” and “the second device”, each lacks of proper antecedent basis.
As per claim 9, lines 11-12, “the fourth sequence” and “the end location”, each lacks of proper antecedent basis.
Claim 9, lines 22, 25, 26, the following limitations of “a first quantity of bits”, “a 1st third sequence” , “a last third sequence” and “a second quantity of bits”, each is vague and indefinite as there is a respective unclear antecedent in claim 9, lines 6-10.
Claim 10, lines 2, 3, 8, and 9-10, “ the 1st third sequence” , “the last third sequence” “the clock frequency accuracy” , “the second device” and “the demodulation-allowed error ratio” each lacks of proper antecedent basis.
Claim 19, “the terminal device” lacks of proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 14, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al US Patent Application Publication No. 20190273576 A1.
As per claim 1, Zhang et al discloses a method and apparatus (fig. 5 and fig. 8) comprising a method, comprising: determining, by a first device, a second sequence (codeword 510 input to FEC 512) wherein the second sequence (codeword 510 input to FEC 512) is obtained based on a base sequence (note at least para. [0045] that teaches the codewords are based on a root (base) sequence) and a first mask that corresponds to a first encoding scheme (note fig. 5, 511 and fig. 4); and sending, by the first device, the second sequence (codeword 510 input to FEC 512) and a first sequence (codeword 520 input to FEC 522), wherein the first sequence comprises a first encoded bit sequence obtained by encoding an information bit sequence (Note output of FEC 522 based on the first encoding scheme ( fig. 4) (at least para. [0059] teaches the a codewords includes bits encoded according to the MCS scheme ) the first encoded bit sequence comprises N bits, and N is a positive integer(it teaches the encoded sequence includes 16 bits (see at least para. [0049]).
As per claim 4, Zhang et al teaches the use of additional codewords(sequences) that includes by definition a third codeword (sequence)(see at least para. [0068]). The limitations “the third sequence is used to partition the first encoded bit sequence” is merely an intended used and are not required for patentability.
As per claim 14, see rejection of claim 1. In addition, Zhang et al teaches reception of the first and second codewords (sequences)(fig. 8, 850); determining, by the second device, the first encoding scheme corresponding to the first mask based on the second sequence (note fig. 8, 850 and para. [0056] that teaches “The network node can then determine or derive the MCS of the second codeword after detecting the CRC mask of the first codeword “; and processing, by the second device, the first encoded bit sequence by using a decoding scheme corresponding to the first encoding scheme (note fig. 8, 860).
As per claim 19, see rejection of claim 1. In addition Zhang et al teaches a device (fig. 9, 910) comprising a processor (911) and a memory (912) the memory is coupled to the processor, the memory is configured to store computer program code, the computer program code comprises computer instructions, and when the processor execute the computer instructions, the terminal device is enabled to perform the method according to claim 1 (note para. [0075]).
As per claim 20, Zhang et al further teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium including instruction to execute the method of claim 1 (see at least para. [0078]).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al US Patent Application Publication No. 20190273576 A1 in view of Tiruvur et al US Patent Application Publication US 20160134394 A1.
As per claim 3, applied to claim 1 above, Zhang et al teaches every feature of the invention recited in the claim and further teaches FEC (512 ) as the coding scheme but fails to teach that the FEC is a line coding scheme. Tiruvur et al teaches in para. [0050] FEC coding as a line coding scheme. It would have been obvious to one skill in the art to implement the FEC coding scheme as a line coding in order to ensure data integrity (Tiruvur et al para. [0034]).
As per claim 16, see rejection of claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 11-13, 15, 17 and 18 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.
Claims 5-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN B CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-3020. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-3:00PM Monday-Thursday.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/JEAN B CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633