DETAILED ACTION
Applicants’ response filed 9/24/26 has been considered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Double patenting rejections are maintained. No terminal disclaimer has been received.
Prior art rejections are maintained. See prior office for details. No meaningful or significant amendments were made. Independent claims 1, 7 and 11 remain unchanged. Some other claims were amended slightly wherein scope were not altered.
Application is pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 9/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For example, claim 1 recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
392
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicants contend D1 does not disclose encoded blocks each corresponding to a respective individual payload.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The rejection was based on an obviousness rationale over the references D1 and D2 as shown in the prior office action.
D1 substantially teaches (i.e., Figure 8, reference numbers 806 and 831 along with paragraph 0132) to encode each particular payload.
Therefore the claim limitation does not render the claim novel over the prior arts.
Applicants contend D1’s decoding steps concern two separate transport blocks, not encoded blocks of one codeword.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Again the rejection was based on an obviousness rationale.
D1 substantially teaches (i.e., Figure 8, reference number 830 and paragraph 0129) the idea of having a single transport block TB12.
Therefore the claim limitation does not render the claim novel over the prior arts.
Applicants contend D2 does not supply the missing limitation.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
D2 was introduced to teach the concept of self-decoding as stated in the prior office action.
For example, D2 teaches (i.e., Figure 8 and paragraphs 0112-0113) the concept of self-decoding.
Therefore under broadest reasonably interpretations, the claims of the present application lack novelty over the prior arts.
Conclusion
It is the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims of the present application, as presented, are not patentably distinct and novel over the prior arts. Applicants are encouraged to formulate claim language that clearly states the novelty of the application. Perhaps refer to Figures 6 and 11 of the present application. For now, prior rejections are maintained. See prior office action for details.
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
