DETAILED ACTION
Application filed 3/14/2025 has been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Drawings are objected to as being illegible.
Application is pending.
Drawings
All of the drawings are objected to because the information in the drawings is illegible and very blurry. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-7 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.
For example, claim 1 recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
451
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim states, “…identifying one or more lower-weight information column blocks of the mother code parity-check matrix that have the lowest column weight values and that corresponding to information bits…”
The “one or more lower-weight information columns blocks” are not defined. What exactly is the lower-weight?
If there are more than one lower-weight information columns blocks then how can multiple columns have the lowest weight?
What is the difference between the lower weight and the lowest weight?
Essential elements are missing from the claim.
Then the claim states, “…rearranging the mother code parity-check matrix into a rearranged parity-check matrix such that the lower-weight information column blocks appear at the beginning of the rearranged parity check matrix…”
What exactly is the beginning or the parity check matrix?
It is the tope left?
Essential elements are missing from the claim.
Respective dependent claims are rejected at least for dependency.
Corrections are requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
For example, claim 1 recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
451
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is directed to a method that is used for decoding a signal by redesigning an irregular low-density parity-check code.
Under prong 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, the claim falls in a statutory category of a method or process.
Further analysis of the claim under prong 2, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim language is directed towards re-designing an irregular low-density parity-check code.
The claim recites general data (i.e., parity check matrix) computation and manipulation which is considered to be abstract and mathematical in nature.
The re-designing of the irregular low-density parity-check code can be done on pen and paper or mentally since there are just data that is being computed or manipulated.
Therefore these limitations are abstract and this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application with significantly more.
The last limitation in the claim states decoding with a LDPC decoder.
The elements of a LDPC decoder are considered to be generically recited computer/circuit elements that do not add any meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic device.
Therefore the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a LDPC decoder is considered generic, well-known routine and conventional.
As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (i.e., LDPC decoder) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer/processor component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot be statutory under 35 USC 101. Therefore the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7 do not add anything significant to the abstract idea of claim 1 and therefore are not statutory.
Corrections are requested.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUJTABA M CHAUDRY whose telephone number is (571)272-3817. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Albert DeCady can be reached at 571-272-3819. 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.
MUJTABA M. CHAUDRY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2112
/MUJTABA M CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights