CTNF 19/024,061 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 02/20/2025. Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 19, and 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2025 and 08/19/2025 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. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: The language “so that an information bit construction and encoding method based on an allocation sequence is designed” is unclear. The language “may be determined” is speculative. The abstract to the disclosure fails to provide a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent. 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. 06-16 AIA 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 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 claim 1, the limitation “is used to describe” 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 relationship disclosed between “the allocation sequence” and “quantities of information bits”. Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a same code rate” and “a same to-be-encoded sub-block size” 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 if “same” discloses a relationship of equal values, or a label for comparison of different values. Regarding claim 12, the limitation “is used to describe” 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 relationship disclosed between “the allocation sequence” and “quantities of information bits”. Regarding claim 12, the limitation “a same code rate” and “a same to-be-encoded sub-block size” 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 if “same” discloses a relationship of equal values, or a label for comparison of different values. 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 and 12 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 “determining a length of a to-be-encoded block based on K”, “determining a quantity of information bits in each to-be-encoded sub-block in the to-be-encoded block based on the length of the to-be-encoded block and an allocation sequence, wherein the allocation sequence is used to describe quantities of information bits in all to-be-encoded sub-blocks except a last to-be-encoded sub-block in the to-be-encoded block in a case of a same code rate and a same to-be-encoded sub-block size”, and “encoding the to-be-encoded block to obtain encoded data” are directed to a mathematical algorithm, thus, abstract. Furthermore, limitations such as “obtaining K information bits” and “sending the encoded data” are merely intended use statements that do not define method to be anything more than well known, generic computer operations. Claims 2 – 11 recite no additional limitation that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea defined in independent claim 12. Claim 2 mathematical relationship Claim 3 mathematical relationship Claim 4 mathematical relationship Claim 5 mathematical relationship Claim 6 mathematical relationship Claim 7 mathematical relationship Claim 8 mathematical relationship Claim 9 intended use statements that do not define method to be anything more than well known, generic computer operations Claim 10 mathematical relationship Claim 11 intended use statements that do not define method to be anything more than well known, generic computer operations In analyzing claim 12 of the instant application, the limitations “the to-be-encoded block comprises a plurality of to-be-encoded sub-blocks, a quantity of information bits in each to-be-encoded sub-block in the to-be-encoded block is determined based on a length of the to-be-encoded block and an allocation sequence”, and “the allocation sequence is used to describe quantities of information bits in all to-be-encoded sub-blocks except a last to-be-encoded sub-block in the to-be-encoded block in a case of a same code rate and a same to-be-encoded sub-block size” are directed to a mathematical algorithm, thus, abstract. Furthermore, limitations such as “receiving encoded data, wherein the encoded data is obtained by encoding a to-be-encoded block”, and “decoding the encoded data to obtain decoded data” are merely intended use statements that do not define the method to be anything more than well known, generic computer operations. Claims 13 – 20 recite no additional limitation that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea defined in independent claim 12. Claim 13 mathematical relationship Claim 14 mathematical relationship Claim 15 mathematical relationship Claim 16 mathematical relationship Claim 17 mathematical relationship Claim 18 mathematical relationship Claim 19 mathematical relationship Claim 20 mathematical relationship 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 – 07-15 AIA Claim s 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Wu et al., U.S. Publication 2022/0206895 (herein Wu) . Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses: A method, comprising: obtaining K information bits (figure 3, element DATA U; paragraph 0030); determining a length of a to-be-encoded block based on K (figure 3, element DATA U; paragraph 0030); determining a quantity of information bits in each to-be-encoded sub-block in the to-be-encoded block based on the length of the to-be-encoded block and an allocation sequence, wherein the allocation sequence is used to describe quantities of information bits in all to-be-encoded sub-blocks except a last to-be-encoded sub-block in the to-be-encoded block in a case of a same code rate and a same to-be-encoded sub-block size (figure 3, element 325a – 325n; figure 2, element 215; paragraph 0029 – 0032); encoding the to-be-encoded block to obtain encoded data (claim 1; figure 12, element 1225); and sending the encoded data (figure 12, element 1235). Regarding claim 12, Wu discloses: A method, comprising: receiving encoded data, wherein the encoded data is obtained by encoding a to-be-encoded block (figure 7; paragraph 0051), the to-be-encoded block comprises a plurality of to-be-encoded sub-blocks, a quantity of information bits in each to-be-encoded sub-block in the to-be-encoded block is determined based on a length of the to-be-encoded block and an allocation sequence (figure 3, element 325a – 325n; figure 2, element 215; paragraph 0029 – 0032), and the allocation sequence is used to describe quantities of information bits in all to-be-encoded sub-blocks except a last to-be-encoded sub-block in the to-be-encoded block in a case of a same code rate and a same to-be-encoded sub-block size (figure 3, element 325a – 325n; figure 2, element 215; paragraph 0029 – 0032); and decoding the encoded data to obtain decoded data (figure 7; paragraph 0051) . 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, 5, and 13 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, in view of Qin et al., U.S. Publication2024/0031058 (herein Qin) . Regarding claims 2 and 13, claim 2 as representative, Wu teaches the limitations of the parent claim. Wu does not explicitly teach: the length of the to-be-encoded block is E=K/R, wherein R is a code rate; the to-be-encoded block comprises m to-be-encoded sub-blocks, wherein m = E N ' ; the encoded data comprises a code block, the code block comprises m code sub-blocks, and a size of the code sub-block is N', wherein N'= 2" (paragraph 0007, 0017); the allocation sequence comprises S-1 variables {A 0 , A 1 , A 2 ,..., A S-2 }; and a relationship between elements in the allocation sequence is A 0 ≤ A 1 ≤ … ≤ A S-2 . Qin teaches: the length of the to-be-encoded block is E=K/R, wherein R is a code rate (paragraph 0140, 0143); the to-be-encoded block comprises m to-be-encoded sub-blocks, wherein m = E N ' (paragraph 0007, 0017); the encoded data comprises a code block, the code block comprises m code sub-blocks, and a size of the code sub-block is N', wherein N'= 2" (paragraph 0007, 0017); the allocation sequence comprises S-1 variables {A 0 , A 1 , A 2 ,..., A S-2 } (paragraph 0191 – 0197); and a relationship between elements in the allocation sequence is A 0 ≤ A 1 ≤ … ≤ A S-2 (paragraph 0191 – 0197). 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 Wu: polar codes; with the teaching of Qin: sub-block manipulation for the purpose of managing encoding data (abstract). Polar codes are well-known in the art (abstract). Sub-block manipulation for encoding is well-known design choice in the art (paragraph 0007). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the use of well-known design choice would yield a predictable result. Regarding claims 3 and 14, claim 3 as representative, Wu teaches the limitations of the parent claim. Wu does not explicitly teach: a length of each to-be-encoded sub-block is: E 0 =E-(m-1) x N', or E i =N', wherein i = ∈ { l , 2 , . . . , m - 2 , m - 1 } . Qin teaches: a length of each to-be-encoded sub-block is: E 0 =E-(m-1) x N', or E i =N', wherein i = ∈ { l , 2 , . . . , m - 2 , m - 1 } (paragraph 0007, 0017, 0140, 0143) And in view of the motivation previously stated above, for claim 2, the claim is rejected. Regarding claims 5 and 16, claim 5 as representative, Wu teaches the limitations of the parent claim. Wu does not explicitly teach: a length of each to-be-encoded sub-block is: E m-2 = E -(m-1) x N', or E i =N', wherein i = ∈ { l , 2 , . . . , m - 2 , m - 1 } . Qin teaches: a length of each to-be-encoded sub-block is: E m-2 = E -(m-1) x N', or E i =N', wherein i = ∈ { l , 2 , . . . , m - 2 , m - 1 } (paragraph 0007, 0017, 0140, 0143). And in view of the motivation previously stated above, for claim 2, 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 : Yang; Wei et al. US 20190245560 A1 Wang; Ying et al. US 20190181979 A1 JANG; Min et al. US 20220116135 A1 Li; Bin et al. US 20230223957 A1 determining a quantity of information bits in each to-be-encoded sub-block in the to-be-encoded block based on the length of the to-be-encoded block and an allocation sequence, wherein the allocation sequence is used to describe quantities of information bits in all to-be-encoded sub-blocks except a last to-be-encoded sub-block in the to-be-encoded block in a case of a same code rate and a same to-be-encoded sub-block size; 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: 19/024,061 Page 2 Art Unit: 2111
Prosecution Insights