Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/933,457

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CYCLIC REDUNDANCY CHECK ERROR CORRECTION WITH REDUCED COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Oct 31, 2024
Examiner
PEREZ, JAMES M
Art Unit
2635
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
606 granted / 678 resolved
+27.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
696
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.0%
-34.0% vs TC avg
§103
31.9%
-8.1% vs TC avg
§102
32.1%
-7.9% vs TC avg
§112
21.9%
-18.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 678 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION This action is responsive to the communications filed on 10/31/2024. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 9 is concurrently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (USPN 6,052812: hereinafter “Chen”). With regards to claim 9, Chen teaches an apparatus (figs. 1a/b and 9a-9d, where figs. 1a/b: disclose communication system between two transceiver communication devices, each of the communication devices including at least one processor (fig. 1a: processor(s) 22 and/or 42) and at least one receiver (e.g. communication/network subsystem 28 and/or 48). Where the functions of the receiver when processing a received frame is show by figs. 9a-9d (for the remote device or the messaging server)) comprising: a receiver (previously addressed) configured to receive a first copy, a second copy and a third copy of first data (figs. 1a/b and 9a-9d, furthermore see figure 9d after the YES result of the second retransmission 1064 step/function. Where the same data have been received three times, i.e. the original/first data transmission, the first re-transmission, and the second re-transmission) including a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) code (figs. 1a/b, 7, and 9a-9d: where CRC is stated throughout the reference, e.g. see figure 7 (CRC field of the packet/frame) and/or figure 9d (CRC errors? 1074)); and one or more processors (previously addressed) configured (see col. 4, lines 5-31; where the processor(s) 22 and 42 as well as communication subsystem 28 and network interface subsystem 48 are each/all configured to execute “communication protocol software” (previously stored in memory (e.g. storage subsystem 24/44)) to (addressed below): identify a first pair of data selected from two of the first copy, the second copy and the third copy, having a first set of bit positions that have bit values different from each other (figs. 1a/b and 9a-9d: where figure 9d after the 2nd retransmission result of YES outputs to “Goto BCH flowchart” 910 (shown by figure 9b+9c in context). Where in Majority Bit vote 1068 of figure 9d, pairs of bit values at the same bit positions (across various bit positions pairs) of at least two of the three copies are compared to find errors (i.e. errors = different bits values for the bit pairs at the same bit position within two copies). Which is addressed in col. 19, line 15-55 which may attempt to correct multiple bit errors (via majority bit voting/combining) in various bit positions using at least three bit copies of the same first data/bit segment/sequence); determine that a number of the first set of bit positions is greater than a threshold value (figs. 1a/b and 9a-9d: where figure 9d, the majority bit vote 106 outputs to unit 1070 (Uncorrectable BCH errors?) is mapped to the instant limitation. Where claimed “number” is mapped to the amount of ‘Uncorrectable BCH errors’ and the threshold is the acceptable amount of ‘Uncorrectable BCH errors’ generating the YES/NO result of unit 1070. The YES result of 1070 meaning the ‘Uncorrectable BCH errors’ is greater than the ‘Uncorrectable BCH errors threshold’); identify a second pair of data selected from two of the first copy, the second copy and the third copy, having a second set of bit positions that have bit values different from each other (figs. 1a/b and 9a-9d: where figure 9d after the 2nd retransmission result of YES outputs to “Goto BCH flowchart” 910 (shown by figure 9b+9c in context). Where in Majority Bit vote 1068 of figure 9d, pairs of bit values at the same bit positions (across various bit positions pairs) of at least two of the three copies are compared to find errors (i.e. errors = different bits values for the bit pairs at the same bit position within two copies). Which is addressed in col. 19, line 15-55 which may attempts to correct multiple bit errors (via majority bit voting/combining) in various bit positions using at least three bit copies of the same second data/bit segment/sequence); determine that a number of the second set of bit positions is not greater than the threshold value (figs. 1a/b and 9a-9d: where figure 9d, the majority bit vote 106 outputs to unit 1070 (Uncorrectable BCH errors?) is mapped to the instant limitation. Where claimed “number” is mapped to the amount of ‘Uncorrectable BCH errors’ and the threshold is the acceptable amount of ‘Uncorrectable BCH errors’ generating the YES/NO result of unit 1070. The NO result of 1070 meaning the ‘Uncorrectable BCH errors’ is NOT greater than the ‘Uncorrectable BCH errors threshold’); and correct, based at least on the second set of bit positions, an error contained in the first copy (where previously majority bit voting/combing (see col. 19, line 15-55) attempts to correct detected bit disagreements/errors in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd copies in the second data/bit segment/sequence (i.e. based at least one the second set of bit positions). Note that this limitation is not explicitly stated to be explicitly/logically stated to be connected to the results of the above limitation (i.e. “determine that a number of the second set of bit positions is not greater than the threshold value”, above). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-8 and 13-20 allowed. Claims 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. With regards to claims 1-8 and 13-20, the closest prior art of record is Zopf (USPN 8,522,121), which also directed to a communication receiver that received a processes multiple copies of CRC encoded data/bits, taking into account bit positions between the copies, processing CRC syndromes, and bit selective bit flips (see figures 2, 5, and the CRC error correction decoder of figure 6). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited in the attached PTO-892 form. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M. Perez, telephone number (571)270-3231. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 10am to 6pm EST. 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, David C. Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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. /JAMES M PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635 2/6/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 31, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598100
TRANSMITTER BASED ON RLM COMPENSATION AND OPERATING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12580723
METHOD AND APPARATUS OF DESKEW PROCESS FOR A CIRCUITRY, COMPUTER STORAGE MEDIUM, AND TERMINALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12567878
COMMON CONTROL CHANNEL-FREE COMMUNICATION METHOD AND SYSTEM FEATURING INTEGRATED AUTONOMOUS LINK ESTABLISHMENT AND FREQUENCY CONVERSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12562938
Attack Detection Method for Wi-Fi Secure Ranging from Transmitter to Receiver
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12562790
CODEBOOK GENERATION METHOD AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+14.5%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 678 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month