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 .
Claims 1 to 20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the information disclosure statement submitted on 10-24-2024, 9-10-2025 and 12-23-2025 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449).
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 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims (1, 6, 11 and 16) recites “wherein the output bit sequence is determined based on an intermediate bit sequence and further based on a transform that is applied prior to applying a Polar transform having a size of N, wherein the transform is based on at least one index set that is a subset of a set of bit indices.”
This limitation of: wherein the output bit sequence is determined based on an intermediate bit sequence and further based on a transform that is applied prior to applying a Polar transform having a size of N, wherein the transform is based on at least one index set that is a subset of a set of bit indices,” as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation , covers a mathematical relationship of the mathematical concept grouping. The terms of the claims are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus the limitation of transform and Polar transform are mathematical in nature and the preamble does not further modify limitations recited in the body of the claim to add any meaningful limits to the abstract idea.
The additional limitations of “determining, by a first node, an output bit sequence having E bits based on an input bit sequence having K bits,” and transmitting, by the first node, a signal including the output bit sequence to a second node” are mere instructions for applying the abstract idea and are generic components not adding anything more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements of “determining” and “transmitting” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are generic components for performing the abstract idea and does not add any meaningful limits to the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are tools for performing the abstract idea and fails to integrate the use of the abstract idea into a practical application thereby improving technology or a computer. Therefore, the independent claims (1, 6, 11 and 16) are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 to 5, 7 to 10, 12 to 15 and 17 to 20 are extended elements of the abstract idea of the independent claims and the claims are abstract in nature falling withing the mathematical concept grouping. The dependent claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application rather they are mere instructions for performing the mathematical relationship of the mathematical concept grouping. The dependent claims do not add any meaningful limits to the abstract idea to improve the technology or the computer component and fails to add significantly more than the abstracts idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arikan (USPAP 2022/0103291).
Claims 1 and 11:
Arikan substantially teaches the claimed invention. Arikan teaches a method and an apparatus for encoding and decoding of data using concatenated polarization adjusted convolutional (PAC) codes. Arikan teaches that a communication system (100) comprises a concatenated encoder (102) (“first node”) receiving input block of data d (“input bit sequence having K bits”) via input port (130) and outputting an array x via of port (134) (see par. 0072). Arikan teaches that the concatenated encoder performs encoding on the input data received through a series of steps, such as in step (214) performing a convolution operation on the received data, which reads on “wherein the output bit sequence is determined based on an intermediate bit sequence and further based on a transform that is applied prior to applying a polar transform having a size of N” (see par. 0081 and 0088).
Arikan teaches that at step (216) a polar transform is applied to the data after the convolution operation (see par. 0090). Arikan teaches that the polar transform operation takes into consideration the code block length N (“size of N”) (see par. 0090 et seq.). Arikan teaches that the concatenated encoder sends Nout to the channel for communicating the output array to the input port of a decoder (“second node”) (see par. 0098).
Arikan fails to specifically teach that the communication system comprises the limitation of “wherein the transform is based on at least one index set that is a subset of a set of bit indices, wherein the set of bit indices comprises all non-negative integers that are less than H and wherein K<N and K<E;” however, this teaching is obvious to the teachings of Arikan because Arikan teaches that a coding technique of layered polarization adjusted convolutional code (LPAC) comprises a data index set (A) and partitioning the data index set into a plurality of layer index sets (see par. 0027). Arikan teaches that the LPAC considers an index set and the LPAC has parameters (N, K, A, f, g), as well as the dimension for K is an integer in the range 0≤K≤N (see par. 0059 et seq.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system performing convolutional operation of Arikan to include the claimed limitation of: “wherein the transform is based on at least one index set that is a subset of a set of bit indices, wherein the set of bit indices comprises all non-negative integers that are less than H and wherein K<N and K<E;” to achieve the claimed invention because Arikan teaches coding techniques for providing solutions to problems with coding PAC includes utilizing LPAC with data index sets. This modification would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize coding techniques for improving system reliability such as LPAC as taught by Arikan (see par. 0160 et seq.).
Claims 6 and 16:
Arikan substantially teaches the claimed invention. Arikan teaches a method and an apparatus for encoding and decoding of data using concatenated polarization adjusted convolutional (PAC) codes. Arikan teaches that a communication system (100) comprises a concatenated decoder (106) (“second node”) receiving input block of data y (“output bit sequence having E bits”) via input port (136) (see par. 0102). Arikan teaches that the concatenated decoder performs decoding on the input data y received through a series of steps, such as in step (308) performing inner decoding operation. (see par. 0106). Arikan teaches that the decoding operation is the inverse of the encoding operation (see par. 0116).
Arikan fails to specifically teach that the communication system comprises the limitation of “wherein the transform is based on at least one index set that is a subset of a set of bit indices, wherein the set of bit indices comprises all non-negative integers that are less than H and wherein K<N and K<E;” however, this teaching is obvious to the teachings of Arikan because Arikan teaches that a coding technique of layered polarization adjusted convolutional code (LPAC) comprises a data index set (A) and partitioning the data index set into a plurality of layer index sets (see par. 0027). Arikan teaches that the LPAC considers an index set and the LPAC has parameters (N, K, A, f, g), as well as the dimension for K is an integer in the range 0≤K≤N (see par. 0059 et seq.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system performing convolutional operation of Arikan to include the claimed limitation of: “wherein the transform is based on at least one index set that is a subset of a set of bit indices, wherein the set of bit indices comprises all non-negative integers that are less than H and wherein K<N and K<E;” to achieve the claimed invention because Arikan teaches coding techniques for providing solutions to problems with coding PAC includes utilizing LPAC with data index sets. This modification would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize coding techniques for improving system reliability such as LPAC as taught by Arikan (see par. 0160 et seq.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 to 5, 7 to 10, 12 to 15 and 17 to 20 would be allowable once the 101 rejection is overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yao et al. (WO 2021/188513 A1) discloses list decoding of polarized adjusted convolutional codes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLY A CHASE whose telephone number is (571)272-3816. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-5:30, 2nd Friday 8:00-4:30.
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.
/Shelly A Chase/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112