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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2 are pending in this action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/01/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
International Search Report
Examiner reviewed the international search report (IRS) submitted on August 1, 2025. The IRS does not appear to reject based on the prior arts.
USC 112, 6th paragraph 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.
Claim limitation has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language to perform various function 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, claim(s) 1-2 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Claims 2 recite the limitation of "an encoding module configured to…” which has a corresponding structure as seen in Figure 7, implicit encoder block.
Claims 2 recite the limitation of "a decoding module configured to…” which has a corresponding structure as seen in Figure 10, implicit decoder block.
The Examiner believes that the above limitation invokes USC 112, 6th paragraph and has a corresponding structure and algorithm as seen in the Applicant’s specification in Figures 7 and 10
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In analyzing under step 1, is the claim to a process, machine manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
In analyzing under step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes.
The claim(s) 1 and 2 recite(s) the abstract limitations such as “encoding an explicit sequence and one or more implicit sequences independently … into a first set of codewords, and …flipping selected bits of the explicit sequence's codewords based on a block of coded bits from a first level implicit sequence; sequentially flipping selected bits of each ith level implicit sequence's codewords based on a block of coded bits from a (i+1)th level implicit sequence, … decoding the explicit sequence to retrieve the first set of codewords; generating artificial channel information values …sequentially decoding each ith level implicit sequence's codewords using the artificial channel information generated from the immediately higher level implicit sequence's codewords, where i=1, 2, . . . , N, to recover the transmitted implicit sequences” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation under mathematical algorithm but for the recitation of generic computer processor such as “encoding and decoding module” (see claim 2).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation under mathematical algorithm but for the recitation of generic computer components and software module, then it falls within the “Mathematical Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract limitation.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2. The recited steps of " transmitting the flipped explicit sequence over the communication channel to the receiver" are extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and hence these features are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
In analyzing under step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite a generic processor such as “encoding module” and “decoding module” (see claim 2) for encoding and decoding. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a generic processor and software module which are high level of generality performing encoding/decoding. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In analyzing under step 2B, does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO
Claims 1-2 do not recite any additional elements except a generic processor such as “encoding module” and “decoding module” (see claim 2) for encoding and decoding. Accordingly, the additional generic elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a generic processor and software module which are high level of generality performing code generation
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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 1-2 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.
Any claim not specifically mentioned, is rejected due to its dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the explicit sequence's codewords” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a block of coded bits from a first level implicit sequence”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " a first level implicit sequence”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each ith level implicit sequence's codewords based on a block of coded bits from a (i+1)th level implicit sequence”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the receiver”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites a limitation such as “the explicit sequence's codewords based on a block of coded bits from a first level implicit sequence”
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the codewords of the explicit sequence” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation " the explicit sequence codewords” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation " the codewords of the immediately higher level” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the immediately higher level” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 are allowed and if Applicant can overcome the rejection above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior arts of record do not clearly disclose such as “…generating artificial channel information values for the first level implicit sequence during the decoding of the explicit sequence; and sequentially decoding each ith level implicit sequence's codewords using the artificial channel information generated from the immediately higher level implicit sequence's codewords” as recited in claims 1 and 2.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN DANG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM - 3:30 PM.
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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at 571-270-3750. 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.
/Thien Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111