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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted have been considered. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.9 /. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120, through utility U.S. Application which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/461,809, filed September 6, 2023, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/443,992, filed July 29, 2021, now U.S. Patent No. 11,791,843, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/320,038, filed January 23, 2019, now U.S. Patent No. 11,128,316, which is a national stage application, filed under 35 U.S.C. § 371, of International Patent Application No. PCT/CN2017/089977, filed on June 26, 2017, which claims foreign priority to International Patent Application No. PCT/CN2016/091592, filed July 25, 2016, all of which are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety.
Specification
The specification is objected to because:
The Cross-Reference to Related Applications section in paragraph [0001] of the specification does not provide the status of U.S. application serial no. 18/461,809 (i.e., now U.S. Patent No. 12,283,973).
Drawings
The formal drawings are accepted.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No.11,128,316.
For example, claim 1 of the present application teaches “A processing system for constructing a polar code by a transmitter comprising: one or more processors configured to execute instructions stored on one or more memories to cause the transmitter to: determine at least one set of parameters corresponding to control data to be transmitted; determine a set of indices corresponding to bits of the control data based on the at least one set of parameters, the at least one set of indices indicating positions of the bits of the control data; polar encode the control data based on the at least one set of parameters and the set of indices to generate a coded block of the control data; and transmit the coded block of the control data”. Whereas claim 7 of U.S. PN: 11,128,316 teaches “An apparatus for constructing a polar code by a transmitter comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to: determine at least one set of parameters corresponding to data to be transmitted, and a set of sorting indices corresponding to bits of the data to be transmitted based on the set of parameters, the set of sorting indices indicating a position set of the bits to be transmitted wherein the at least one set of parameters includes an information block size K and a coded block size N, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured, for the determination of the at least one set of parameters, to: divide a transport block having the data to be transmitted into a plurality of information blocks, determine the information block size as a size of at least one of the information blocks, and determine the coded block size N based at least on information regarding resources allocated for transmission of the data; polar encode the data based at least on the set of parameters and the set of sorting indices to generate a coded block of the data; and transmit the coded block of the data”.
Rationales:
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant applicant's claim 1 broadens the scope of claim 7 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,128,316 by eliminating several imitations such as “dividing a transport block having the data to be transmitted into a plurality of information blocks, determining the information block size as a size of at least one of the information blocks, and determining the coded block size N based at least on information regarding resources allocated for transmission of the data”. It is obvious the limitations of claim 7 of U.S. PN: 11,128,316 read on the limitations of claim 1 of the current application. Further, it has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (BdPatApp&lnt 1970); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
“A latter patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the latter claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
For example, claim 9 of the present application teaches “a method for constructing a polar code by a transmitter comprising: determining at least one set of parameters corresponding to control data to be transmitted; determining a set of indices corresponding to bits of the control data based on the at least one set of parameters, the at least one set of indices indicating positions of the bits of the control data; polar encoding the control data based on the at least one set of parameters and the set of indices to generate a coded block of the control data; and transmitting the coded block of the control data”. Whereas claim 1 of U.S. PN: 11,128,316 teaches “a method for constructing a polar code by a transmitter comprising: determining at least one set of parameters corresponding to data to be transmitted, and a set of sorting indices corresponding to bits of the data to be transmitted based on the set of parameters, the set of sorting indices indicating a position set of the bits to be transmitted, wherein the at least one set of parameters includes an information block size K and a coded block size N, and wherein determining the at least one set of parameters comprises: dividing a transport block having the data to be transmitted into a plurality of information blocks, determining the information block size as a size of at least one of the information blocks, and determining the coded block size N based at least on information regarding resources allocated for transmission of the data; polar encoding the data based at least on the set of parameters and the set of sorting indices to generate a coded block of the data; and transmitting the coded block of the data”.
Rationales:
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant applicant's claim 9 broadens the scope of claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,128,316 by eliminating several imitations such as “dividing a transport block having the data to be transmitted into a plurality of information blocks, determining the information block size as a size of at least one of the information blocks, and determining the coded block size N based at least on information regarding resources allocated for transmission of the data”. It is obvious the limitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,128,316 read on the limitations of claim 9 of the instant application. Further, it has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. See /n re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184(CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (BdPat App&int 1970); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
“A latter patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the latter claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
For example, claim 17 of the present application teaches “A non-transitory computer readable medium for constructing a polar code by a transmitter comprising: instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of the transmitter, cause the transmitter to: determine at least one set of parameters corresponding to control data to be transmitted; determine a set of indices corresponding to bits of the control data based on the at least one set of parameters, the at least one set of indices indicating positions of the bits of the control data; polar encode the control data based on the at least one set of parameters and the set of indices to generate a coded block of the control data; and transmit the coded block of the control data. Whereas claim 1 of U.S. PN: 11,128,316 teaches “A method for constructing a polar code by a transmitter comprising: determining at least one set of parameters corresponding to data to be transmitted, and a set of sorting indices corresponding to bits of the data to be transmitted based on the set of parameters, the set of sorting indices indicating a position set of the bits to be transmitted, wherein the at least one set of parameters includes an information block size K and a coded block size N, and wherein determining the at least one set of parameters comprises: dividing a transport block having the data to be transmitted into a plurality of information blocks, determining the information block size as a size of at least one of the information blocks, and determining the coded block size N based at least on information regarding resources allocated for transmission of the data; polar encoding the data based at least on the set of parameters and the set of sorting indices to generate a coded block of the data; and transmitting the coded block of the data”.
Rational:
Claims 17 of the instant application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,128,316 teaches are generally directed to different statutory embodiments of the same invention. That is, claim 17 of the instant application is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, while claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,277,156 is directed to a method. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 17 of the instant application is the non-transitory computer readable medium version of the method limitations cited in claim 1 of U.S. patent no. 11,128,316. Therefore, the claims are obvious variations of each other and not patentably distinct.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant applicant's claim 17 broadens the scope of claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,128,316 by eliminating several imitations such as “dividing a transport block having the data to be transmitted into a plurality of information blocks, determining the information block size as a size of at least one of the information blocks, and determining the coded block size N based at least on information regarding resources allocated for transmission of the data”. It is obvious the limitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,128,316 read on the limitations of claim 17 of the instant application. Further, it has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. See /n re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184(CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (BdPat App&int 1970); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
“A latter patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the latter claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Other parallel dependent claims of the instant application have corresponding issues with the dependent claims of U.S. patent no. 11,128,316 are also rejected non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the applicant files Terminal Disclaimer to overcome the rejection(s) under obvious-type non-statutory double patenting, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Esaw T. Abraham whose telephone number is (571) 272-3812. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicants are 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 on (571) 272-3819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (703) 872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ESAW T ABRAHAM/
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights