DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
A terminal disclaimer is being filed herewith; thereby rendering the double patenting rejection moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Moon fails to disclose “splitting… a first codeword into a first portion and a second portion,” “splitting… a second codeword into a third portion and a fourth portion,” and transmitting selected portions of the respective codewords together because Moon allegedly partitions only a single information sequence while Yoda merely partitions one information bit stream into multiple coding levels.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite that the first and second codewords are generated from unrelated information sources, separate packets, successive packets, independent frames, or independent transport blocks. Rather, the claims broadly recite only a “first codeword” and a “second codeword.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, the claims encompass separately encoded codewords produced within a multilevel coding architecture.
Moon expressly teaches partitioning input information into multiple portions, separately encoding those portions, and combining the resulting encoded information for transmission using constellation subsets and multilevel coding. Moon further teaches that different encoded portions are mapped into the same transmitted symbols while one encoded portion determines the applicable subset or constellation region for the remaining encoded information. Thus, Moon teaches the functional relationship required by the claims notwithstanding Applicant’s characterization of Moon as involving only a “single information sequence.”
Moreover, Yoda expressly teaches a multilevel coding (MLC) architecture in which a sequence of information bits is partitioned into multiple block sequences, each independently encoded to produce respective encoded sequences (codewords), and mapped into common APSK symbols according to a set-partitioned constellation. Yoda further teaches that decoding at higher coding levels depends upon information obtained from lower coding levels through multistage decoding and constellation labeling.
Applicant asserts that the encoded sequences in Yoda originate from a common information stream and therefore are not “independent codewords.” However, the pending claims contain no limitation requiring the codewords to originate from unrelated information streams, different packets, different frames, or different transmissions. Applicant’s arguments therefore rely upon limitations that are not recited in the claims and are not read into the claims during examination. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention creates dependencies across successive packet transmissions. However, no such limitation appears in the pending claims. The claims neither recite packet boundaries, packet sequencing, inter-packet dependency, nor decoding of a subsequent packet using information recovered from a previous packet. Consequently, these asserted distinctions are not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Applicant additionally argues that Moon’s encoded bits (e.g., b1, b2, b3, b4) merely represent different protection levels of a single information sequence. Even assuming this characterization is correct, it does not distinguish the pending claims because the claims broadly encompass transmitting selected portions of separately encoded information together as symbols without specifying the origin of the encoded information. Both Moon and Yoda teach mapping separately encoded bit streams into common constellation symbols according to multilevel coding principles.
The Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to employ the multilevel set-partitioned APSK modulation and labeling techniques of Yoda within Moon’s multilevel coding framework to improve decoding performance and reduce decoding latency while preserving the advantages of hierarchical protection. Such a modification merely represents the predictable use of known multilevel coding techniques according to their established functions.
Accordingly, the combination of Moon and Yoda continues to teach or at least suggest each limitation of the independent claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained.
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 Moon (US 2012/0278680 A1) in view of Yoda and Ochiai ("Multilevel Coded Modulation With Reduced Latency Decoding Based on Novel Set Partitioning for APSK," IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, Vol. 61, No. 4, December 2015, pp. 674-684) (hereinafter Yoda).
Claim 1: Moon teaches a method for improving performance of code split communications, the method comprising:
splitting, by a transmission system, a first codeword into portions (Moon teaches receiving input data including a first portion and second portion (Fig. 1A, steps 100-102. See para [0015]-[0016]);
splitting, by the transmission system, a second codeword into portions (e.g. Moon teaches processing multiple input data streams with hierarchical coding structure where different portions receive varying levels of error correction protection. See Fig. 7 and para [0042]-[0045]);
transmitting, by the transmission system, the portions together as symbols (e.g. Moon teaches outputting encoded data corresponding to multiple portions for transmission. See Fig. 1A, steps 108, 112 and para [0016]), wherein: each symbol comprises bits from different portions (e.g. Moon's 16-QAM encoder shows bits b1-b2 (first portion of first codeword) and bits b3-b4 (second portion of second codeword) combined for transmission. See Fig. 7 and para [0042]-[0045]); and
the second portion of the first codeword identifies a label group (e.g. Moon teaches that the first portion of input data (encoded at step 102) identifies which subset (label group) the data corresponds to. See para [0016] and Fig. 1A, step 104).
Moon does not teach splitting two independent codewords to be transmitted together and the second portion of the first codeword identifies a label group of a plurality of label groups of a constellation.
However, Yoda teaches optimized 16-APSK constellations including (4,12)-APSK with ring ratio optimization (Section III-A; Fig. 4); it also teaches novel set partitioning labeling strategies (type-B) where bits identify label groups within APSK constellations (Section IV-A; Fig. 4). Furthermore, Yoda teaches mapping teaches transmitting bits from different codewords as symbols where the second portion identifies label groups (Section IV; Fig. 4) and labeling strategies for APSK including Gray labeling properties (Section IV; Fig. 4). Additionally, for a 16-APSK, Yoda teaches a one and three bit configuration in which the first number of bits identifies label groups and the remaining bits map within groups (Section IV-A; Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Moon's multilevel coding architecture with Yoda's APSK-specific set partitioning teachings because APSK constellations benefit from multilevel coding and set partitioning approaches (Yoda: Abstract; Section I). Besides, applying Moon's MLC framework to Yoda's APSK constellations represents a simple substitution of one known modulation scheme (PAM/QAM) for another known modulation scheme (APSK) to obtain predictable improvements in peak-to-average power ratio and power amplifier efficiency, as explicitly recognized by both references. Moon acknowledges applicability to wireless transmission ([0007]), and Yoda explicitly identify APSK's advantages for satellite broadcasting (Abstract; Section I).
As per claims 6, 11 and 16, the claimed features are rejected similarly to claim 1 above. As per claim 6, Yoda teaches a DVB-S2 satellite systems. As per claims 11 and 16, Moon teaches decoding first and second portion of encoded data (see Fig. 1).
Claim 2: Moon and Yoda teach the method of claim 1, wherein within each label group of the plurality of label groups, symbol labels are Gray labeled. For instance, Yoda discusses labeling strategies including Gray labeling for APSK constellations (Section IV; Fig. 4).
As per claims 7, 12, and 17, the claimed features are rejected similarly to claim 2 above.
Claim 3: Moon and Yoda teach the method of claim 2, wherein at least a first symbol label is not Gray labeled with an adjacent second symbol label, the first symbol label and the adjacent second symbol label being members of different label groups of the plurality of label groups (e.g. Implicit in set partitioning where boundaries between groups naturally result in non-Gray transitions and inherent in Moon's set partitioning approach).
As per claims 8, 13, and 18, the claimed features are rejected similarly to claim 3 above.
Claim 4: Moon and Yoda teach the method of claim 1, wherein the constellation is an optimized 16 symbol Amplitude and Phase-Shift Keying (APSK) constellation. For instance, Yoda explicitly teaches optimized 16-APSK including (4,12)-APSK with specific ring ratios (Section III-A; Fig. 4).
As per claims 9, 14, and 19, the claimed features are rejected similarly to claim 4 above.
Claim 5: Moon and Yoda teach the method of claim 4, wherein: the first number of bits is one and the second number of bits is three; and at a same radius from the origin, adjacent symbols on the constellation alternate between being members of a first label group and a second label group. For instance, Yoda teaches labeling strategies where bits are split between subset identification and intra-subset mapping; Fig. 4 shows alternation patterns consistent with this configuration.
As per claims 10, 15, and 20, the claimed features are rejected similarly to claim 4 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUERRIER MERANT whose telephone number is (571)270-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 Am - 5:00 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.
/GUERRIER MERANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111 7/14/2026
Prosecution Insights