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
This action is in response to the preliminary amendment received 09/18/2025.
Claims 1 – 20 are amended.
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 365(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/18/2025 was received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The language “An LDPC encoding and decoding method and a related apparatus are disclosed” is repetitive of the title.
The language “can accelerate an overall decoding convergence speed of a system” is a purported merit.
The abstract of the disclosure fails to provide concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent.
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim1 – 20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the parity check matrix complies with a base matrix” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “complies”.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “alternate regularly” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of the limitation.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the base matrix comprises H rows or M columns selected from the following (12x22) matrix:” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of the base matrix. Specifically, it appears a base matrix can be selected from the “(12x22)” matrix that does not satisfy the conditions disclosed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the base matrix comprises H rows or M columns selected from the following (12x22) matrix:” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of the base matrix. Specifically, it appears a base matrix can be selected from the “(12x22)” matrix that does not satisfy the conditions disclosed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the base matrix comprises H rows or M columns selected from the following (12x22) matrix:” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of the base matrix. Specifically, it appears a base matrix can be selected from the “(12x22)” matrix that does not satisfy the conditions disclosed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “the parity check matrix complies with a base matrix” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “complies”.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “alternate regularly” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of the limitation.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the base matrix comprises H rows or M columns selected from the following (12x22) matrix:” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of the base matrix. Specifically, it appears a base matrix can be selected from the “(12x22)” matrix that does not satisfy the conditions disclosed in claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the base matrix comprises H rows or M columns selected from the following (12x22) matrix:” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of the base matrix. Specifically, it appears a base matrix can be selected from the “(12x22) matrix” that does not satisfy the conditions disclosed in claim 11.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “the base matrix comprises H rows or M columns selected from the following (12x22) matrix:” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of the base matrix. Specifically, it appears a base matrix can be selected from the “(12x22) matrix that does not satisfy the conditions disclosed in claim 11.
Any claim not addressed above is rejected due to its dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shutkin et al., U.S. Publication 2019/0260390 (herein Shutkin).
Regarding claim 1, Shutkin discloses: A low-density parity-check (LDPC) code encoding method, comprising: performing encoding on an information bit sequence based on a parity check matrix, to obtain a first code word, wherein the parity check matrix complies with a base matrix (claim 1; figure 6 – 8; paragraph 0017 – 0020), and the base matrix satisfies one of the following conditions: 1) each row in the first two columns of the base matrix contains at least one “1” or 2) the first two columns of the base matrix contain "1 0" and "0 1" that alternate regularly, and "1 1" is positioned between "1 0" and "0 1"; or 3) the first two columns of the base matrix are configured such that one column comprises a plurality of "1 1 1 0" sequences, and the other column contains, in corresponding positions. a plurality of "1 0 1 1" sequences; and transmitting the first code word (claim 1; figure 6, 7).
Regarding claim 2, Shutkin discloses: wherein one column of the first two columns of the base matrix comprises: 1 11 0 1 11 0 1 11 0, the other column of the first two columns of the base matrix comprises: 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1, 1 in the base matrix corresponds to a circulant permutation matrix (CPM), and 0 in the base matrix corresponds to an all-zero square matrix (claim 1; figure 6, 7).
Regarding claim 11, Shutkin discloses: A low-density parity-check (LDPC) code decoding method, comprising: determining a first log-likelihood ratio(LLR) sequence corresponding to a signal received over a first channel, and decoding the first LLR sequence based on a parity check matrix, wherein the parity check matrix complies with a base matrix (paragraph 83 – 90; figure 8), and the base matrix satisfies one of the following conditions: each row in first two columns of the base matrix contains at least one “1”; or the first two columns of the base matrix contain"1 0" and "0 1" that alternate regularly, and "1 1" is positioned between "1 0" and "0 1"; or the first two columns of the base matrix are configured such that one column comprises a plurality of "1 1 1 0" sequences, and the other column comprises, in corresponding positions, a plurality of "1 0 1 1" sequences (figure 6, 7).
Regarding claim 12, Shutkin discloses: one column of the first two columns of the base matrix comprises: 1 11 0 1 11 0 1 11 0, the other column of the first two columns of the base matrix comprises: 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1, 1 in the base matrix corresponds to a circulant permutation matrix (CPM), and 0 in the base matrix corresponds to an all-zero square matrix (figure 6, 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 10 and 13 – 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Declercq; David et al. US 20210391872 A1
XU; Jun et al. US 20170230058 A1
AHN; Seokki et al. US 20220224359 A1
LI; Liguang et al. US 20200028523 A1
Walke; Richard L. et al. US 10797727 B1
Walke; Richard L. et al. US 11108410 B1
A low-density parity-check (LDPC) code encoding method, comprising:
performing encoding on an information bit sequence based on a parity check matrix, to obtain a first code word, wherein the parity check matrix complies with a base matrix
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL F MCMAHON whose telephone number is (571)270-3232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am - 5pm 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, 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.
/Daniel F. McMahon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111