DETAILED ACTION
Applicants’ response filed 12/30/2025 has been considered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Prior rejections under 35 USC 112 are maintained and reformulated in view of amendments.
Application is pending.
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 21-40 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.
For example, claim 21 recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
668
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Initially the claim states to perform data compression on the first transport block which comprises converting the transport block into S segments wherein S is greater than or equal to 1. The Examiner would like to point out that in the event S is equal to 1, then it is not clear if the transport block will be the same size and identical to the S segment?
Then the claim states to perform preprocessing on the S segment(s) based on X processing modes to obtain G information groups, wherein each of the G information groups is obtained by performing pre-processing on one or more of the S information segments based on a respective one of the X processing modes. Both G and X are both greater than or equal to 1. As previously stated, in the event when S is equal to 1 and if the transport block is equal to the transport block, are the number of X processing modes and the G information groups necessarily the same? It appears that the numbers for S, X and G are all the same since these all correspond to each other. However this is not clear in the claim. In other words, S G and X all have to be equal, right?
The next limitation refers to C to-be-encoded code blocks on the G information groups. So does this mean that C also has to be equal to S, G and X?
It is not clear how the total data size of C can be less than the data size of the first transport block when S is equal to 1?
Essential elements are missing from the claims.
Independent claim 40 is rejected for similar reasons. Respective dependent claims 22-39 are rejected at least based on dependency.
Corrections are requested.
It is the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims of the present application, as presented, are not entirely claim and have contradictions therein. Applicants are encouraged to formulate claim language that clearly defines the novelty of the application. If Applicants believe an interview with the Examiner might be useful, then they are welcome to contact the Examiner for a discussion. Prior rejections are maintained in view of above remarks.
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 MUJTABA M CHAUDRY whose telephone number is (571)272-3817. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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.
MUJTABA M. CHAUDRY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2112
/MUJTABA M CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112