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 .
This action is in response to amendment filed 6/4/2026.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
Applicant’s remarks, see page 8-15, filed 06/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 8-16 and 20, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claim(s) 1-6, 8-16 and 20, can be withdrawn.
However, regarding claim 21, the remarks presented have not been found persuasive.
Applicant remarks (page 15-16), Pope’s autocorrelation values are computed from the received data burst rather than being predetermined (Pope, col. 3, 11. 19-25; col. 11, 11. 30-39), and the initialization Pope describes sets path metrics to zero without using those values (Pope, col. 4, 11. 20-23), which values Pope uses instead to calculate branch metrics during decoding (Pope, col. 3, 11. 25-27; col. 12, 11. 14-35) - the cited portions of Pope do not disclose or suggest these recitations of claim 21. Kang is not relied upon for these recitations, and Kang's description of storing a program on a recording medium (Kang, [0147]) does not supply them.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pope in view of Kang, wherein Pope et al
teaches an apparatus (comprising ((945, 965), figure 9)), comprising:
an input (being an input of ((1080), figure 10) to receive an incoming data stream (Zn) (see col. 10, lines 2-5),
a processor ((945, 965), figure 9) performing a method comprising:
procedure of at least partially initialize a trellis ("trellis processing, col. 3, line 27) for MLSE (referred to "MLSE 1080", col. 9, line 65) at least partially based on predetermined state information comprising channel values ("autocorrelation values of the impulse response of the channel", col. 3, lines 24-25) about a communication channel ("channel", col. 3, line 25) associated with an incoming data stream ("data burst 5", col 3, line 9) being a digital signal,
(see col. 3, lines 8-27, col. 9, line 61 to col. 10, line 20), and
procedure ((945, 965), figure 9) of processing, via the MLSE, the incoming data stream to further initialize (referred to "forward trace initialization", col. 11, lines 61-62 and "backward trace initialization", col. 11, line 62), via the MLSE engine, the trellis and decode, via ((965), figure 9), the incoming data stream (see col. 9, line 51 to col. 10, line 26, col. 11, lines 60-63).
Examiner agrees that Kang is not relied upon these recitations analyzed above in light of the teachings of Pope. Kang was referenced to show method steps can be stored in a memory (recording medium) as "instructions" that, responsive to execution by a programmable processor (computer), enable the processor to perform the method/process stored as instructions (see para. 0147).
It would have been an obvious choice for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the teaching of Kang with Pope et al, for the benefit of provide enhanced programmable features with instructions stored in the memory in high speed, as needed. Applicant’s attempt to overcome the rejection is deemed not persuasive, the rejection has been maintained.
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 21, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pope et al in view of Kang et al (2020/0366536).
Regarding claim 21, Pope et al teaches an apparatus (comprising ((945, 965), figure 9)), comprising:
an input (being an input of ((1080), figure 10) to receive an incoming data stream (Zn) (see col. 10, lines 2-5), and
a processor ((945, 965), figure 9) performing a method comprising:
procedure of at least partially initializing a trellis (“trellis processing , col. 3, line 27) for MLSE (referred to “MLSE 1080”, col. 9, line 65) at least partially based on predetermined state information comprising channel values (“autocorrelation values of the impulse response of the channel”, col. 3, lines 24-25) about a communication channel (“channel”, col. 3, line 25) associated with an incoming data stream (“data burst 5”, col 3, line 9) being a digital signal, (see col. 3, lines 8-27, col. 9, line 61 to col. 10, line 20), and
procedure ((945, 965), figure 9) of processing, via the MLSE, the incoming data stream to further initialize (referred to “forward trace initialization”, col. 11, lines 61-62 and “backward trace initialization”, col. 11, line 62) , via the MLSE engine, the trellis and decode, via ((965), figure 9), the incoming data stream (see col. 9, line 51 to col. 10, line 26, col. 11, lines 60-63).
Pope et al does not teach whether the apparatus comprises a memory to store instructions that, responsive to execution by the processor, enable the processor to perform the method, as claimed.
In analogous art, Kang et al teaches that a method can be implemented with a memory “recording medium” to store instructions “instructions” that, responsive to execution by a programmable processor “computer”, enable the processor to perform the method (see [0147).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Kang et al with Pope et al, in such a way that the processor would be programmable, wherein the apparatus would comprise a memory to store instructions that, responsive to execution by the processor, enable the at least one processor to perform the method, so that the processor enhanced with programmable features, in high speed fashion, carryout the method/process.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 11, 13, 21, are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, 11, 21 line 3, the first time use of the acronym “MLSE”, required to be spelled out, such as,
-- Maximal Likelihood Sequence Estimation (MLSE) –
In Claim 3, 13, first time use of the acronym “PAM4”, and “NRZ” required to be spelled out.
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.
Claim 21 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 21, recites the limitation "a communication channel associated with an incoming data stream;" in line 7-8. A proper antecedent is lacking, see receive an incoming data stream; recited in line 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18, 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections set forth in this Office action.
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 QUTBUDDIN GHULAMALI whose telephone number is (571) 272-3014. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 4:00pm.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571 272 3042. 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.
/QUTBUDDIN GHULAMALI/
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2632.
Prosecution Insights