DETAILED ACTION
Application filed 10/25/2024 has been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification and drawings are accepted.
Application is pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livshitz et al. USPAP 20090259915A1 (herein: D1) in view of Lui et al. USPAP 20120173949A1 (herein: D2).
As per claim 1, D1 substantially teaches (i.e., title, abstract, paragraph 0001) a method of error-corrected communication, the method comprising: a base matrix comprising a plurality of columns (i.e., Figure 4, base matrix 41 and paragraph 0052); applying a plurality of permutations to the base matrix to obtain a plurality of permuted matrices (i.e., Figure 16 below, permutation matrices 161, 162, 163, 164 and paragraph 0105); generating a parity-check matrix by concatenating the plurality of permuted matrices (i.e., Figure 16 below, concatenation of permutation matrices 161, 162, 163, 164 to form matrix 165 and paragraph 0105); generating a plurality of codewords based on the parity-check matrix (i.e., Figure 6 and paragraph 0044); encoding a message according to the plurality of codewords (i.e., Figure 6 and paragraphs 0044, 0061); and transmitting the encoded message via a noisy channel (i.e., Figure 6 and paragraph 0070).
PNG
media_image1.png
459
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
D1 does not explicitly teach constructing a base matrix comprising a plurality of columns as stated in the present application. However D2 teaches (i.e., Figure 1, below and paragraphs 0009-0013) to construct a base matrix.
PNG
media_image2.png
253
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of D2 with D1 to actually construct the base matrix as opposed to choosing a base matrix as taught by D1 in Figures 26a-c. This would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art because one of ordinary skill would have recognized that constructing the actual base matrix would have covered more specific code rates for the particular application including high-rate applications.
As per claim 2, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, receiving the message via the noisy channel; and decoding the message, said decoding comprising performing error correction of the message based on the parity-check matrix (i.e., Figure 16 and paragraph 0067).
As per claim 3, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, decoding comprises message-passing decoding (i.e., Figure 16 and paragraphs 0097-0110).
As per claim 4, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, progressive-list decoding (i.e., Figure 16 and paragraphs 0097-0110).
As per claim 5, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, each of the plurality of columns has the same Hamming weight (i.e., Figure 16 and paragraph 0067).
As per claim 6, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, the indices of each consecutive pair of non-zero entries in each of the plurality of columns differ by an odd number (i.e., Figure 16 and paragraph 0057).
As per claim 7, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, the plurality of permutations comprises random column-wise permutations (i.e., Figure 16 and paragraph 0092).
As per claim 8, D1 substantially teaches (i.e., title, abstract, Figure 1paragraph 0001) a system comprising: a network interface coupled to a noisy channel (i.e., Figure 16 and paragraph 0070); a computing node comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions (i.e., claim 28) embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor of the computing node to cause the processor to perform a method comprising: a base matrix comprising a plurality of columns (i.e., Figure 4, base matrix 41 and paragraph 0052); applying a plurality of permutations to the base matrix to obtain a plurality of permuted matrices (i.e., Figure 16 below, permutation matrices 161, 162, 163, 164 and paragraph 0105); generating a parity-check matrix by concatenating the plurality of permuted matrices (i.e., Figure 16 below, concatenation of permutation matrices 161, 162, 163, 164 to form matrix 165 and paragraph 0105); generating a plurality of codewords based on the parity-check matrix (i.e., Figure 6 and paragraph 0044); encoding a message according to the plurality of codewords (i.e., Figure 6 and paragraphs 0044, 0061); and transmitting the encoded message via the noisy channel (i.e., Figure 6 and paragraph 0070).
PNG
media_image1.png
459
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
D1 does not explicitly teach constructing a base matrix comprising a plurality of columns as stated in the present application. However D2 teaches (i.e., Figure 1, below and paragraphs 0009-0013) to construct a base matrix.
PNG
media_image2.png
253
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of D2 with D1 to actually construct the base matrix as opposed to choosing a base matrix as taught by D1 in Figures 26a-c. This would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art because one of ordinary skill would have recognized that constructing the actual base matrix would have covered more specific code rates for the particular application including high-rate applications.
As per claim 9, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, receive the message via the noisy channel; and decode the message, said decoding comprising performing error correction of the message based on the parity-check matrix (i.e., Figure 16 and paragraph 0067).
As per claim 10, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, decoding comprises message-passing decoding (i.e., Figure 16 and paragraph 0097-0110).
As per claim 11, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, decoding comprises progressive-list decoding (i.e., Figure 16 and paragraph 0097-0110).
As per claim 12, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, the plurality of columns has the same Hamming weight (i.e., Figure 16 and paragraph 0067).
As per claim 13, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, the indices of each consecutive pair of non-zero entries in each of the plurality of columns differ by an odd number (i.e., Figure 16 and paragraph 0051).
As per claim 14, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, the plurality of permutations comprises random column-wise permutations (i.e., Figure 16 and paragraph 0092).
As per claim 15, D1 substantially teaches (i.e., title, abstract, paragraph 0001, claim 28) a computer program product for parity-check coding and decoding, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a method comprising: a base matrix comprising a plurality of columns (i.e., Figure 4, base matrix 41 and paragraph 0052); applying a plurality of permutations to the base matrix to obtain a plurality of permuted matrices (i.e., Figure 16 below, permutation matrices 161, 162, 163, 164 and paragraph 0105); generating a parity-check matrix by concatenating the plurality of permuted matrices (i.e., Figure 16 below, concatenation of permutation matrices 161, 162, 163, 164 to form matrix 165 and paragraph 0105); generating a plurality of codewords based on the parity-check matrix (i.e., Figure 6 and paragraph 0044); encoding a message according to the plurality of codewords (i.e., Figure 6 and paragraphs 0044, 0061); and transmitting the encoded message via a noisy channel (i.e., Figure 6 and paragraph 0070).
PNG
media_image1.png
459
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
D1 does not explicitly teach constructing a base matrix comprising a plurality of columns as stated in the present application. However D2 teaches (i.e., Figure 1, below and paragraphs 0009-0013) to construct a base matrix.
PNG
media_image2.png
253
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of D2 with D1 to actually construct the base matrix as opposed to choosing a base matrix as taught by D1 in Figures 26a-c. This would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art because one of ordinary skill would have recognized that constructing the actual base matrix would have covered more specific code rates for the particular application including high-rate applications.
As per claim 16, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, receive the message via the noisy channel; and decode the message, said decoding comprising performing error correction of the message based on the parity-check matrix (i.e., Figure 16 and paragraph 0067).
As per claim 17, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, decoding comprises message- passing decoding or progressive-list decoding (i.e., Figure 16 and paragraphs 0097-0110).
As per claim 18, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, the plurality of columns has the same Hamming weight (i.e., Figure 16 and paragraph 0067).
As per claim 19, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, the indices of each consecutive pair of non-zero entries in each of the plurality of columns differ by an odd number (i.e., Figure 16 and paragraph 0057).
As per claim 20, D1 substantially teaches, in view of above rejections, the plurality of permutations comprises random column-wise permutations (i.e., Figure 16 and paragraph 0092).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUJTABA M CHAUDRY whose telephone number is (571)272-3817. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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.
MUJTABA M. CHAUDRY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2112
/MUJTABA M CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights