CTNF 18/985,795 CTNF 84777 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 02/06/2025. 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 statements (IDS) submitted on 03/03/2025 08/28/2025 were received. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1 – 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 claims 1, 17, and 20, claim 1 as representative, the limitation “conforming” 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 operation performed on the “first parity check matrix” and the “second parity check matrix”. Specifically, paragraph 0098 discloses “but the parity check matrices and the CPMs correspond or conform to the same base matrix” and paragraph 0101 discloses “it may be understood that the parity check matrix conforms to (or satisfies) the base matrix”. The examiner asserts the operation “conform”, “correspond”, or “satisfies” is not well understood in the art, at the time of filing. One of ordinary skill would be unclear the scope of the operation performed. Any claim not addressed above is rejected due to its dependency on a rejected claim Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 17, and 20 are directed to a mathematical relationship or algorithm that have been identified as abstract by numerous courts. In analyzing claim 1 of the instant application, the limitations “performing low-density parity-check (LDPC) encoding on a first bit sequence based on a parity check matrix to obtain a first data packet, wherein the parity check matrix comprises a first parity check matrix and a second parity check matrix, and wherein a code length of the first parity check matrix is different from a code length of the second parity check matrix;” and “conforming the first parity check matrix and the second parity check matrix to a first base matrix” are directed to a mathematical algorithm, thus, abstract. Furthermore, limitations such as “wirelessly transmitting the first data packet” is merely intended use statement that does not define a transmitter to be anything more than well known, generic computer elements. Claims 2 – 16 recite no additional limitation that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea defined in independent claim 1. Claim 2 a mathematical relationship or algorithm Claim 3 a mathematical relationship or algorithm Claim 4 a mathematical relationship or algorithm Claim 5 a mathematical relationship or algorithm Claim 6 a mathematical relationship or algorithm Claim 7 a mathematical relationship or algorithm Claim 8 a mathematical relationship or algorithm Claim 9 a mathematical relationship or algorithm Claim 10 a mathematical relationship or algorithm Claim 11 a mathematical relationship or algorithm Claim 12 a mathematical relationship or algorithm Claim 13 a mathematical relationship or algorithm Claim 14 a mathematical relationship or algorithm Claim 15 a mathematical relationship or algorithm Claim 16 a mathematical relationship or algorithm In analyzing claim 17 of the instant application, the limitations “obtaining a first log-likelihood ratio (LLR) sequence corresponding to the first channel receive sequence” and “decoding the first LLR sequence based on a parity check matrix, wherein the parity check matrix comprises a first parity check matrix and a second parity check matrix, and wherein a code length of the first parity check matrix is different from a code length of the second parity check matrix”, and “conforming the first parity check matrix and the second parity check matrix to a first base matrix” are directed to a mathematical algorithm, thus, abstract. Furthermore, limitations such as “receiving a first channel receive sequence” is merely intended use statement that does not define a receiver to be anything more than well known, generic computer elements. Claims 18 and 19 recite no additional limitation that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea defined in independent claim 17. Claim 18 a mathematical relationship or algorithm Claim 19 a mathematical relationship or algorithm In analyzing claim 20 of the instant application, the limitations “perform low-density parity-check (LDPC) encoding on a first bit sequence based on a parity check matrix to obtain a first data packet, wherein the parity check matrix comprises a first parity check matrix and a second parity check matrix, and wherein a code length of the first parity check matrix is different from a code length of the second parity check matrix” and “conforming the first parity check matrix and the second parity check matrix conform to a first base matrix” are directed to a mathematical algorithm, thus, abstract. The additional elements recited in the claims such as a “a memory configured to store instructions” and “at least one processor coupled to the memory”, are merely generic computer elements performing generic computer functions, and merely computing data is routine and well known in the art (TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC), thus, the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, limitations such as “the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the communication apparatus to” and “wirelessly transmit the first data packet” are merely intended use statements that do not define the communication apparatus to be anything more than well known, generic computer elements. Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, claims 1 – 20 are directed to an abstract idea, hence, not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Hassanin et al., U.S. Publication 2016/0380722 (herein Hassanin) . Regarding claim 1, Hassanin discloses: A method, comprising: performing low-density parity-check (LDPC) encoding on a first bit sequence based on a parity check matrix to obtain a first data packet, wherein the parity check matrix comprises a first parity check matrix and a second parity check matrix (paragraph 0038; figure 3, element 305, 310), and wherein a code length of the first parity check matrix is different from a code length of the second parity check matrix (paragraph 0040); conforming the first parity check matrix and the second parity check matrix conform to a first base matrix (paragraph 0045, 0050, 0054); and wirelessly transmitting the first data packet (figure 3, element 315, 320). Regarding claim 17, Hassanin discloses: A method, comprising: receiving a first channel receive sequence (figure 6, element 605); a first log-likelihood ratio (LLR) sequence corresponding to the first channel receive sequence (paragraph 0063, 0070); the first LLR sequence based on a parity check matrix, wherein the parity check matrix comprises a first parity check matrix and a second parity check matrix (paragraph 0045, 0050, 0075), and wherein a code length of the first parity check matrix is different from a code length of the second parity check matrix (paragraph 0045, 0050, 0075); and conforming the first parity check matrix and the second parity check matrix to a first base matrix (paragraph 0045, 0050, 0075). Regarding claim 20, Hassanin discloses: A communication apparatus, comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and least one processor coupled to the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the communication apparatus to: perform low-density parity-check (LDPC) encoding on a first bit sequence based on a parity check matrix to obtain a first data packet, wherein the parity check matrix comprises a first parity check matrix and a second parity check matrix (paragraph 0038; figure 3, element 305, 310), and wherein a code length of the first parity check matrix is different from a code length of the second parity check matrix (paragraph 0040); conforming the first parity check matrix and the second parity check matrix to a first base matrix (paragraph 0045, 0050, 0054); and wirelessly transmit the first data packet (figure 3, element 315, 320) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 3, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassanin, in view of Usatyuk et al., U.S. Publication 2020/0220556 (herein Usatyuk) . Regarding claim 2, Hassanin teaches the limitations of the parent claim. Hassanin does not explicitly teach: a specific extension factor value of a circulant permutation matrix (CPM) in a first position in the first parity check matrix is b, an extension factor of the CPM in the first position in the first parity check matrix is Z1, a specific extension factor value of a CPM in a first position in the second parity check matrix is (b mod Z), and an extension factor of the CPM in the first position in the second parity check matrix is Z2, and wherein Z, Z1, and Z2 are all integers greater than 0, Z1 is greater than or equal to Z, and Z2 is less than Z. Usatyuk teaches: a specific extension factor value of a circulant permutation matrix (CPM) in a first position in the first parity check matrix is b, an extension factor of the CPM in the first position in the first parity check matrix is Z1, a specific extension factor value of a CPM in a first position in the second parity check matrix is (b mod Z), and an extension factor of the CPM in the first position in the second parity check matrix is Z2, and wherein Z, Z1, and Z2 are all integers greater than 0, Z1 is greater than or equal to Z, and Z2 is less than Z (figure 3, 4; paragraph 0061, 0062). One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, would find it obvious to combine the teaching of Hassanin: performing low-density parity-check (LDPC) encoding/ decoding; with the teaching of Usatyuk: a circulant permutation matrix for the purpose of formation of parity check matrices (figure 3, 4). LDPC encoding/ decoding is well-known in the art (abstract). A circulant permutation matrix well-known design choice in the art (paragraph 0137). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the use of well-known design choice would yield a predictable result. Regarding claim 3, Hassanin teaches the limitations of the parent claim. Hassanin does not explicitly teach: a specific extension factor value of a circulant permutation matrix (CPM) in a first position in the first parity check matrix is b, an extension factor of the CPM in the first position in the first parity check matrix is Z3, a specific extension factor value of a CPM in a first position in the second parity check matrix is any one of b, (b+Z), and (b+2Z), and an extension factor of the CPM in the first position in the second parity check matrix is Z4, and wherein Z, Z3, and Z4 are all integers greater than 0, Z3 is less than Z, and Z4 is greater than or equal to Z. Usatyuk teaches: a specific extension factor value of a circulant permutation matrix (CPM) in a first position in the first parity check matrix is b, an extension factor of the CPM in the first position in the first parity check matrix is Z3, a specific extension factor value of a CPM in a first position in the second parity check matrix is any one of b, (b+Z), and (b+2Z), and an extension factor of the CPM in the first position in the second parity check matrix is Z4, and wherein Z, Z3, and Z4 are all integers greater than 0, Z3 is less than Z, and Z4 is greater than or equal to Z (figure 3, 4; paragraph 0061, 0062). And in view of the motivation previously stated above, for claim 3, the claim is rejected. Regarding claim 18, Hassanin teaches the limitations of the parent claim. Hassanin does not explicitly teach: a specific extension factor value of a circulant permutation matrix (CPM} in a first position in the first parity check matrix is b, an extension factor of the CPM in the first position in the first parity check matrix is Z1, a specific extension factor value of a CPM in a first position in the second parity check matrix is (b mod Z), and an extension factor of the CPM in the first position in the second parity check matrix is Z2, wherein Z, Z1, and Z2 are all integers greater than 0, Z1 is greater than or equal to Z, and Z2 is less than Z. Usatyuk teaches: a specific extension factor value of a circulant permutation matrix (CPM} in a first position in the first parity check matrix is b, an extension factor of the CPM in the first position in the first parity check matrix is Z1, a specific extension factor value of a CPM in a first position in the second parity check matrix is (b mod Z), and an extension factor of the CPM in the first position in the second parity check matrix is Z2, wherein Z, Z1, and Z2 are all integers greater than 0, Z1 is greater than or equal to Z, and Z2 is less than Z (figure 3, 4; paragraph 0061, 0062). And in view of the motivation previously stated above, for claim 3, the claim is rejected. Regarding claim 19, Hassanin teaches the limitations of the parent claim. Hassanin does not explicitly teach: a specific extension factor value of a circulant permutation matrix (CPM) in a first position in the first parity check matrix is b, an extension factor of the CPM in the first position in the first parity check matrix is Z3, a specific extension factor value of a CPM in a first position in the second parity check matrix is any one of b, (b+Z), and (b+2Z), and an extension factor of the CPM in the first position in the second parity check matrix is Z4, wherein Z, Z3, and Z4 are all integers greater than 0, Z3 is less than Z, and Z4 is greater than or equal to Z. Usatyuk teaches: a specific extension factor value of a circulant permutation matrix (CPM) in a first position in the first parity check matrix is b, an extension factor of the CPM in the first position in the first parity check matrix is Z3, a specific extension factor value of a CPM in a first position in the second parity check matrix is any one of b, (b+Z), and (b+2Z), and an extension factor of the CPM in the first position in the second parity check matrix is Z4, wherein Z, Z3, and Z4 are all integers greater than 0, Z3 is less than Z, and Z4 is greater than or equal to Z (figure 3, 4; paragraph 0061, 0062). And in view of the motivation previously stated above, for claim 3, the claim is rejected . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : LI; Yong et al. US 20230087247 A1 Kalachev; et al. US 20180337691 A1 conforming the first parity check matrix and the second parity check matrix conform to a first 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 Application/Control Number: 18/985,795 Page 2 Art Unit: 2111
Prosecution Insights