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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the acronym “M-ASK” is recited. Applicant is suggested to define the acronym in the claims for the intended meaning . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 7, after “selecting”, Applicant is suggested to replace “a” with –the-- in order to maintain consistency in claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 10, after “selected”, Applicant is suggested to replace “source” with --binary source-- in order to maintain consistency in claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 12-13, after “selected”, Applicant is suggested to replace “source” with --binary source-- in order to maintain consistency in claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, after “selected”, Applicant is suggested to replace “source” with --binary source-- in order to maintain consistency in claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, after “selecting”, Applicant is suggested to replace “a” with --the-- in order to maintain consistency in claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, after “selecting”, Applicant is suggested to replace “a” with --the-- in order to maintain consistency in claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, after “selecting”, Applicant is suggested to replace “a” with --the-- in order to maintain consistency in claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5, after “is”, Applicant is suggested to replace “the” with --a-- in order to avoid lack of antecedent basis in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, “Pi” is defined as a parameter, while “Pi” is disclosed as a probability in independent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required in order to maintain consistency in the claim.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 8, “Pi” is defined as a parameter, while “Pi” is disclosed as a probability in independent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required in order to maintain consistency in the claim.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 8, after “select”, Applicant is suggested to replace “a” with –the-- in order to maintain consistency in claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 11, after “selected”, Applicant is suggested to replace “source” with --binary source-- in order to maintain consistency in claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 13-14, after “selected”, Applicant is suggested to replace “source” with --binary source-- in order to maintain consistency in claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, after “selected”, Applicant is suggested to replace “source” with --binary source-- in order to maintain consistency in claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 5-6, 8, 12-14, 16-17 and 19-20 are also objected to as being dependent upon an objected base claim.
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 4, 7 and 9-14 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 4 recites the limitation "the binary sequence" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the binary sequence" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the binary sequence" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the binary entropy" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the binary entropy" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12-14 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter
because 19 recites “a computer program product”. The claim is a program per se and does not state to be embodied in physical device conventional in the art hence the claim is ineligible and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
claim 20 recites “a storage medium storing a computer program”. The claim is a signal per se and does not state to be embodied in physical device conventional in the art such as “a non-transitory computer storage medium’ since it is merely recited. Furthermore the specification fails to define or describe the proper meaning of the “storage medium’. This term, in particular is not defined in the specification and thus could encompass both non-transitory and transitory/propagating signal hence the claim is ineligible and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, 10-16, 18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. US 12381765 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. (See mapping below)
Regarding claims 1 and 15 (Instant Application), claims 1 and 10 of (U.S. Patent No. US 12381765 B2) substantially disclose the corresponding claim limitations as highlighted in the table below, respectively.
As can be seen, the light difference is that the instant claim recites “obtaining m-1 bits from a binary source” and “given labelling” in lieu of “obtaining m-1 bits from equiprobable binary source” and “natural labelling” recited in claims of the U.S. Patent No. US 12381765 B2.
The minor difference would be obvious to one skilled in the art since each of the respective elements perform the same function. The obvious variation in the wording does not change claim scope.
18/851,204 (instant)
US 12381765 B2
1. A method, in a transmitter, for transmitting binary data using an M-ASK constellation divided into M/2 sets of two symbols, each set of index
i being associated with a probability pi of transmitting the first symbol of the set and a probability 1-pi of transmitting the second symbol of the set and wherein each symbol of the M-ASK constellation is associated with a binary word defined with a given labelling, said method comprising:
a) obtaining m-1 bits from a binary source where m =log2M;
b) selecting a binary source in a plurality of binary sources responsive to said m-1 bits, each binary source of index i being associated with a probability of outputting a bit zero equal to pi;
c) obtaining one bit from the selected source;
d) obtaining a symbol of the M-ASK constellation associated with the binary word formed by the m-1 bits obtained from the binary source and the bit obtained from the selected source;
e) transmitting said obtained symbol to a receiver over a communication channel.
1. A method, in a transmitter, for transmitting binary data using a M-ASK (Amplitude-Shift Keying) constellation divided into M/2 sets of two symbols, each set of index i comprising the i.sup.th and i.sup.th+M/2 symbols of the M-ASK constellation, where iϵ[1;M/2], and being associated with a probability p.sub.i of transmitting the first symbol of the set and a probability 1−p.sub.i of transmitting the second symbol of the set and wherein each symbol of the M-ASK constellation is associated with a binary word defined using natural labelling, said method comprising:
a) obtaining m−1 bits from an equiprobable binary source where m=log.sub.2M;
b) selecting a binary source in a plurality of binary sources responsive to said m−1 bits, each binary source of index i being associated with a probability of outputting a bit zero equal to p.sub.i;
c) obtaining one bit from the selected source;
d) obtaining a symbol of the M-ASK constellation associated with the binary word formed by the m−1 bits as less significant bits and the bit obtained from the selected source as most significant bit;
e) transmitting said obtained symbol to a receiver over a communication channel.
15. A transmitter configured to transmit binary data using an M-ASK constellation divided into M/2 sets of two symbols,
each set of index i being associated with a probability pi of
transmitting the first symbol of the set and a probability 1-pi of transmitting the second symbol of the set and wherein each symbol of the M-ASK constellation is associated with a binary word defined using a given labelling, said transmitter comprising at least one processor configured to:
a) obtain m-1 bits from a binary source where m = log2M;
b) select a binary source in a plurality of binary sources responsive to said m-1 bits, each binary source of index i being associated with a probability of outputting a bit zero equal to pi;
c) obtain one bit from the selected source;
d) obtain a symbol of the M-ASK constellation associated with the binary word formed by the m-1 bits obtained from the binary source and the bit obtained from the selected source;
e) transmit said obtained symbol to a receiver over a communication channel.
10. A transmitter configured to transmit binary data using a M-ASK (Amplitude-Shift Keying) constellation divided into M/2 sets of two symbols, each set of index i comprising the i.sup.th and i.sup.th+M/2 symbols of the M-ASK constellation, where iϵ[1;M/2], and being associated with a probability p.sub.i of transmitting the first symbol of the set and wherein each symbol of the M-ASK constellation is associated with a binary word defined using natural labelling, said transmitter comprising at least one processor configured to:
a) obtain m−1 bits from an equiprobable binary source where m=log.sub.2M;
b) select a binary source in a plurality of binary sources responsive to said m−1 bits, each binary source of index i being associated with a probability of outputting a bit zero equal to p.sub.i; c) obtain one bit from the selected source;
d) obtain a symbol of the M-ASK constellation associated with the binary word formed by the m−1 bits as less significant bits and the bit obtained from the selected source as most significant bit;
e) transmit said obtained symbol to a receiver over a communication channel.
Regarding claim 2 (Instant Application), claim 1 (U.S. Patent No. US 12381765 B2) substantially discloses the corresponding claim limitations.
Regarding claim 3 (Instant Application), claim 1 (U.S. Patent No. US 12381765 B2) substantially discloses the corresponding claim limitations.
Regarding claim 4 (Instant Application), claim 2 (U.S. Patent No. US 12381765 B2) substantially discloses the corresponding claim limitations.
Regarding claim 5 (Instant Application), claim 3 (U.S. Patent No. US 12381765 B2) substantially discloses the corresponding claim limitations.
Regarding claim 6 (Instant Application), claim 1 (U.S. Patent No. US 12381765 B2) substantially discloses the corresponding claim limitations.
Regarding claim 7 (Instant Application), claim 4 (U.S. Patent No. US 12381765 B2) substantially discloses the corresponding claim limitations.
Regarding claim 10 (Instant Application), claim 5 (U.S. Patent No. US 12381765 B2) substantially discloses the corresponding claim limitations.
Regarding claim 11 (Instant Application), claim 6 (U.S. Patent No. US 12381765 B2) substantially discloses the corresponding claim limitations.
Regarding claim 12 (Instant Application), claim 7 (U.S. Patent No. US 12381765 B2) substantially discloses the corresponding claim limitations.
Regarding claim 13 (Instant Application), claim 8 (U.S. Patent No. US 12381765 B2) substantially discloses the corresponding claim limitations.
Regarding claim 14 (Instant Application), claim 9 (U.S. Patent No. US 12381765 B2) substantially discloses the corresponding claim limitations.
Regarding claim 16 (Instant Application), claim 1 (U.S. Patent No. US 12381765 B2) substantially discloses the corresponding claim limitations.
Regarding claim 18 (Instant Application), claim 10 (U.S. Patent No. US 12381765 B2) substantially discloses the corresponding claim limitations.
Regarding claim 20 (Instant Application), claim 11 (U.S. Patent No. US 12381765 B2) substantially discloses the corresponding claim limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer is filed on overcome the double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180026725 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL BAYARD whose telephone number is (571)272-3016. The examiner can normally be reached 6-9.
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, Ahn K Sam 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.
/EMMANUEL BAYARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633