DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preliminary amendment
2. The claim amendments filed on 11/07/2024 under preliminary amendment have been considered and entered. Therefore, claims 1-14 are presented for examination.
Abstract
3. The abstract of the disclosure is acceptable for examination purposes.
Oath Declaration
4. The Oath complies with all the requirements set forth in MPEP 602 and therefore is accepted.
Drawings
5. The drawings received on 11/07/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Priority
6. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C.119 (a)-(d) for EP22382467.3, filed on May. 13, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
7. The references listed in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/07/2024 have been considered. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO- 1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. - An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
8. Claim 8 limitation "a system module configured to generate families of quasi-cyclic low-density parity-check, LDPC, codes each represented by a single equation---" has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder "system module" coupled with functional language "generate families ---" without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Therefore, claim 8 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
9. Claim 13 limitations "encoding module configured to encode data based on LDPC codes----; transmission module configured to transmit the encoded data” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder "encoding module" coupled with functional language "encode data" and generic placeholder “transmission module” coupled with functional language "transmit the encoded data" without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Therefore, claim 13 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
10. Claim 14 limitations "receiving module configured to receive data; and a decoding module configured to decode the received data based on LDPC codes---," have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder "receiving module" coupled with functional language " receive data" and generic placeholder “decoding module” coupled with functional language "decode the received data" without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Therefore, claim 14 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material or acts for the claimed. Thus, the claims remain ambiguous which makes it difficult to clearly ascertain the scope of the claims.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) (Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph); or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links or associates the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) State on the record where the corresponding structure, material, or acts are set forth in the written description of the specification and linked or associated to the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
11. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1, the claim is directed to a "method" and thus directed to a statutory category
At Step 2A, Prong One, the claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
"generating families of quasi-cyclic low-density parity-check, LDPC, codes each represented by a single equation, said single equation being derived from a geometry whose nature implies good error correcting properties for each of the LDPC codes," as drafted, this limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls into the mathematical relationship as part of the mathematical grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Similarly, the limitation of “the equation allowing quasi-cyclic parity check matrices to be constructed for geometric LDPC codes of exceedingly long length, up to and exceeding four hundred thousand bits, the construction of such check matrices being not possible by any other known method,” as drafted, this limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls into the mathematical relationship as part of the mathematical grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim recites the following additional elements:
The limitation of "wherein the LDPC codes have different lengths and different rates and the families of LDPC codes are generated with a guarantee of minimum distance," which is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
And the limitation of “wherein the geometric and quasi-cyclic properties of the LDPC codes allow low complexity decoding with very low frame error rates" this limitation do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
At Step 2B, the conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more, and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more. Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Independent claims 8 and 9 are similar to claim 1 and is also rejected for the same rationale applied to claim 1.
Dependent claims 1-7, and 10-14 recite more additional limitations, but are generic limitations or components that are well understood, routine and conventional and do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, claims 1-14 are directed to an abstract idea, hence, not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
12. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claim 10, the claim recites the limitation of “the computer program product according to claim 9 embodied on a storage medium.” The storage medium as claimed could be any medium, such as signal wave or software which is a non-statutory subject matter.
As per claim 11, the claim recites the limitation of “the computer program product according to claim 9 carried on a carrier signal.” The carrier signal as claimed could be a signal wave which is a non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
13. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Liu Z et al. "LDPC Codes from Generalized Polygons" IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, IEEE, USA, vol. 51, no. 11, 1 November 2005 (2005-11-01), pages 3890-3898, XP011141522, "herein after as Liu" in view of Yu Kou et al.” Low-Density Parity-Check Codes Based on Finite Geometries: A Rediscovery and New Results “herein after as Kou.”
As pe claims 1, 8, and 9:
Liu substantially teaches or discloses a digital communication coding method, comprising (see abstract): generating families of quasi-cyclic low-density parity-check, LDPC, codes each represented by a single equation, said single equation being derived from a geometry whose nature implies good error correcting properties for each of the LDPC codes (see abstract, sections II. A and III. A; the equation is the incidence structure Γ of the polygons (which includes the quadrangles); the abstract mentions a powerful BER performance for generalized polygon LDPC codes), and the equation allowing quasi-cyclic parity check matrices to be constructed for geometric LDPC codes of exceedingly long length (see section III; the incidence graph of Γ yields the Tanner graph, which in turn yields the parity check matrix; the length of the LDPC codes depends on the order of the generalized quadrangles, which in turn depends on the parameter q defining the finite field GF(q); the larger q, the longer the code; there are, hence, no limitations on the lengths of the codes [Examiner notes: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the LDPC codes are based on generalized quadrangles like the LDPC codes of the present application. The LDPC codes of Document D1, therefore, necessarily have the same properties as those of the present application]), the construction of such check matrices being not possible by any other known method; wherein the LDPC codes have different lengths and different rates and the families of LDPC codes are generated with a guarantee of minimum distance (see Table I of Document D1 shows that the LDPC codes have different lengths and different rates and the families of LDPC codes are provided with a guarantee of minimum distance, Table I; note that the lengths depend on the order and the order is different for different geometries); and wherein the geometric and quasi-cyclic properties of the LDPC codes allow low complexity decoding with very low frame error rates (see abstract, the geometric and quasi-cyclic properties of the LDPC codes allow for powerful bit-error performance when decoding is carried out via low-complexity variants of belief propagation decoding. Note that a powerful BER performance translates into low frame error rates; and section I Our simulation studies demonstrate that the LDPC codes that we derived from generalized polygons, especially from split Cayley hexagons, have superior performance, fast convergence, and very low decoding complexity (due to the low weight of the parity-check matrix). We also find that many GP codes can be decoded very effectively by the low-complexity normalized BP-based algorithm of [18] and, somewhat surprisingly, the induced bit-error rate (BER) can be even lower than full BP decoding).
Liu does not explicitly teach up to and exceeding four hundred thousand bits. However, Kou in the same the field of endeavor teaches up to and exceeding four hundred thousand bits (see section I, parity-check matrix of a finite-geometry LDPC code into multiple rows. Combining column and row splitting of the parity check matrices of finite-geometry LDPC codes, we can obtain a large class of LDPC codes with a wide range of code lengths and rates---- A finite-geometry LDPC code can be extended by splitting each column of its parity-check matrix into multiple columns. This column splitting results in a new sparse matrix and hence a new LDPC code of longer length; and section VI, A finite-geometry (type-I or type-II) LDPC code of length can be extended by splitting each column of its parity-check matrix into multiple columns [Examiner notes: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the extended length can exceeding four hundred thousand bits]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Liu with the teachings of Kou by including up to and exceeding four hundred thousand bits. This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized up to and exceeding four hundred thousand bits would have improved the error performance of the MLG and BF decodings with some additional computational complexity (see section VI of Kou).
As pe claim 2:
Kou teaches that puncturing at least one check bit from one or more of the LDPC codes (see VII, Puncturing the parity-check matrix
PNG
media_image1.png
24
73
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
As pe claim 3:
Kou teaches that wherein the LDPC codes have length equal to or above 20000 bits (see section I, parity-check matrix of a finite-geometry LDPC code into multiple rows. Combining column and row splitting of the parity check matrices of finite-geometry LDPC codes, we can obtain a large class of LDPC codes with a wide range of code lengths and rates---- A finite-geometry LDPC code can be extended by splitting each column of its parity-check matrix into multiple columns. This column splitting results in a new sparse matrix and hence a new LDPC code of longer length; and section VI, A finite-geometry (type-I or type-II) LDPC code of length can be extended by splitting each column of its parity-check matrix into multiple columns).
As pe claim 4:
Liu teaches that a digital communication encoding method, comprising: the digital communication coding method according to any of the digital communication coding method according to any of generate LDPC codes; and encoding data by adding redundancy bits based on the generated LDPC codes (see section III (c), Encoding of Finite GQ LDPC Codes).
As pe claim 5:
Kou teaches that a digital communication decoding method, comprising: the digital communication coding method according to any of claim 1 to generate LDPC codes; and decoding data by correcting errors introduced by a noisy communication channel, said correction based on the generated LDPC codes (see section IV, Suppose a finite-geometry (EG- or PG-) LDPC code G is used for error control over an additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel with zero mean and power spectral density N0/2).
14. Claims 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Liu Z et al. "LDPC Codes from Generalized Polygons" IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, IEEE, USA, vol. 51, no. 11, 1 November 2005 (2005-11-01), pages 3890-3898, XP011141522, "herein after as Liu" in view of Yu Kou et al.” Low-Density Parity-Check Codes Based on Finite Geometries: A Rediscovery and New Results “herein after as Kou” in further view of Li et al. (US 20220085830 A1) “herein after as Li”.
As pe claim 6:
Liu-Kou as combined does not teaches a method of producing a digital communication coding hardware, comprising: the digital communication coding method according to any of claim 1 to generate LDPC codes; and producing the digital communication coding hardware based on the generated LDPC codes. However, Li in the same the field of endeavor teaches producing a digital communication coding hardware, comprising: the digital communication coding method according to any of claim 1 to generate LDPC codes; and producing the digital communication coding hardware based on the generated LDPC codes (see paragraph [0160], herein a quasi-cyclic LDPC coding and decoding apparatus is also provided, which is used to implement the foregoing embodiments and alternative implementations and has been described, so that it will not be described again. As used below, the term “module” may implement a combination of software and/or hardware of a predetermined function. Although the apparatuses described in the following embodiments are preferably implemented in software, hardware, or a combination of software and hardware is also possible and contemplated). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Liu-Kou as combined with the teachings of Li by generating LDPC codes; and producing the digital communication coding hardware based on the generated LDPC codes. This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the generating LDPC codes; and producing the digital communication coding hardware based on the generated LDPC codes would have improved the flexibility of the LDPC coding and decoding process, thereby solving the problem in the related art that LDPC coding and decoding processes lack flexibility (see paragraph [0327] of Li).
As pe claim 7:
Li teaches that the digital communication coding hardware produced by the method according to claim 6 of producing the digital communication coding hardware (see paragraph [0034], herein determining a basic matrix used for low density parity check LDPC coding from a mother basic matrix set; and paragraphs [0198] & [0244]).
As pe claim 10:
Liu-Kou as combined does not teaches the computer program product according to claim 9 embodied on a storage medium. However, Li in the same the field of endeavor teaches the computer program product according to claim 9 embodied on a storage medium (see paragraph [0102], herein According to a further aspect of the present disclosure, a storage medium is also provided. The storage medium may store an execution instruction, which is used to perform the quasi-cyclic LDPC coding and decoding method in the above embodiments). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Liu-Kou as combined with the teachings of Li by including storage medium. This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the storage medium improved the flexibility of the LDPC coding and decoding process, thereby solving the problem in the related art that LDPC coding and decoding processes lack flexibility (see paragraph [0327] of Li).
As pe claim 11:
Liu-Kou as combined does not teaches the computer program product according to claim 9 carried on a carrier signal. However, Li in the same the field of endeavor teaches producing a digital communication coding hardware, comprising: the digital communication coding method according to any of claim 1 to generate LDPC codes; and producing the digital communication coding hardware based on the generated LDPC codes (see paragraph [0319], herein the storage medium may include, but not limited to, a USB flash drive, a Read-Only Memory (ROM), a Random Access Memory (RAM), a mobile hard disk, a diskette, a CD or various medium that can store program codes). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Liu-Kou as combined with the teachings of Li by including carried on a carrier signal. This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the carried on a carrier signal would have improved the flexibility of the LDPC coding and decoding process, thereby solving the problem in the related art that LDPC coding and decoding processes lack flexibility (see paragraph [0327] of Li).
As pe claim 12:
Liu-Kou as combined does not teaches a computing system comprising a memory and a processor, embodying instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor, and the instructions comprising functionality or functionalities to execute the digital communication coding method according to claim 1. However, Li in the same the field of endeavor teaches a memory (see paragraph [0322], USB flash drive, a Read-Only Memory (ROM), a Random Access Memory (RAM)) and a processor, embodying instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor, and the instructions comprising functionality or functionalities to execute the digital communication coding method according to claim 1 (see paragraph [0323], herein the processor executes the method steps described in the foregoing embodiments according to the stored program code in the storage medium). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Liu-Kou as combined with the teachings of Li by including a memory and a processor, embodying instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor, and the instructions comprising functionality or functionalities to execute the digital communication coding method. This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the a memory and a processor, embodying instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor, and the instructions comprising functionality or functionalities to execute the digital communication coding method would have improved the flexibility of the LDPC coding and decoding process, thereby solving the problem in the related art that LDPC coding and decoding processes lack flexibility (see paragraph [0327] of Li).
As pe claim 13:
Liu teaches a digital communication transmitter system, comprising: an encoding module configured to encode data based on LDPC codes generated by the digital communication coding method according to claim 1 (see section III (c), Encoding of Finite GQ LDPC Codes). Liu-Kou as combined does not teaches a digital communication coding hardware, based on LDPC codes generated by the digital communication coding method, or by a computer program comprising program instructions for causing a computer or computing system to perform the digital communication coding method, or by a computing system comprising a memory and a processor, embodying instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor, and the instructions comprising functionality or functionalities to execute a digital communication coding method; and a transmission module configured to transmit the encoded data. However, Li in the same the field of endeavor teaches a digital communication coding hardware, based on LDPC codes generated by the digital communication coding method, or by a computer program comprising program instructions for causing a computer or computing system to perform the digital communication coding method, or by a computing system comprising a memory (see paragraph [0322], USB flash drive, a Read-Only Memory (ROM), a Random Access Memory (RAM)) and a processor, embodying instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor, and the instructions comprising functionality or functionalities to execute a digital communication coding method (see paragraph [0323], herein the processor executes the method steps described in the foregoing embodiments according to the stored program code in the storage medium); and a transmission module configured to transmit the encoded data (see paragraph [0257], herein the terminal sends an instruction ‘00’ to the base station, and then communicates with the base station, using the basic matrix HB0 (the 0.sup.th basic matrix subset) as described above. If data needs to be transmitted, the data is subjected to code block segmentation, determination of a basic matrix with a structured LDPC encoding, LDPC encoding, modulation, and transmission; and paragraph [0321]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Liu-Kou as combined with the teachings of Li by programing instructions for causing a computer or computing system to perform the digital communication coding method, or by a computing system comprising a memory and a processor, embodying instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor, and the instructions comprising functionality or functionalities to execute a digital communication coding method; and a transmission module configured to transmit the encoded data. This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the programing instructions for causing a computer or computing system to perform the digital communication coding method, or by a computing system comprising a memory and a processor, embodying instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor, and the instructions comprising functionality or functionalities to execute a digital communication coding method; and a transmission module configured to transmit the encoded data would have improved the flexibility of the LDPC coding and decoding process, thereby solving the problem in the related art that LDPC coding and decoding processes lack flexibility (see paragraph [0327] of Li).
As pe claim 14:
Liu teaches a digital communication receiver system, comprising: a receiving module configured to receive data; and a decoding module configured to decode the received data based on LDPC codes generated by the digital communication coding method according to claim 1 (see abstract, the geometric and quasi-cyclic properties of the LDPC codes allow for powerful bit-error performance when decoding is carried out via low-complexity variants of belief propagation decoding. Note that a powerful BER performance translates into low frame error rates; and section I Our simulation studies demonstrate that the LDPC codes that we derived from generalized polygons, especially from split Cayley hexagons, have superior performance, fast convergence, and very low decoding complexity (due to the low weight of the parity-check matrix). We also find that many GP codes can be decoded very effectively by the low-complexity normalized BP-based algorithm of [18] and, somewhat surprisingly, the induced bit-error rate (BER) can be even lower than full BP decoding). Liu-Kou as combined does not teaches a digital communication coding hardware based on LDPC codes generated by the digital communication coding method, or by a computer program comprising program instructions for causing a computer or computing system to perform the digital communication coding method, or by a computing system comprising a memory and a processor, embodying instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor, and the instructions comprising functionality or functionalities to execute the digital communication coding method. However, Li in the same the field of endeavor a digital communication coding hardware based on LDPC codes generated by the digital communication coding method, or by a computer program comprising program instructions for causing a computer or computing system to perform the digital communication coding method, or by a computing system comprising a memory (see paragraph [0322], USB flash drive, a Read-Only Memory (ROM), a Random Access Memory (RAM)) and a processor, embodying instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor, and the instructions comprising functionality or functionalities to execute the digital communication coding method (see paragraph [0323], herein the processor executes the method steps described in the foregoing embodiments according to the stored program code in the storage medium). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Liu-Kou as combined with the teachings of Li by programing instructions for causing a computer or computing system to perform the digital communication coding method, or by a computing system comprising a memory and a processor, embodying instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor, and the instructions comprising functionality or functionalities to execute the digital communication coding method. This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the programing instructions for causing a computer or computing system to perform the digital communication coding method, or by a computing system comprising a memory and a processor, embodying instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor, and the instructions comprising functionality or functionalities to execute the digital communication coding method would have improved the flexibility of the LDPC coding and decoding process, thereby solving the problem in the related art that LDPC coding and decoding processes lack flexibility (see paragraph [0327] of Li).
Examiner Notes
15. When amending the claims, applicants are respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Prior Art
16. The prior art of record, considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, is listed in the attached PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSMAN ALSHACK whose telephone number is (571)272-2069. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:30 AM-5:00 PM EST, also please fax interview request to (571) 273- 2069. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ALBERT DECADY can be reached on 5712723819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OSMAN M ALSHACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2112