3333
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.
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. 18/359,235 (i.e., now U.S. Patent No. 12,308,963).
Drawings
The formal drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. “herein Chen” (U.S. PN: 11,469,779), in view of Afshar et al. “herein Afshar” (U.S. PN: 12,238,724)
Chen substantially teaches a wireless communication device (see figure 4 and col. 10, lines 41-56), comprising: a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code, the processing system configured to cause the wireless communication device to (see figure 8A and col. 5, lines 61-67 to col. 6, lines 1-27) receive, via a plurality of bit channels, a signal representing a plurality of code blocks collectively comprising an information bit vector, the plurality of code blocks encoded in accordance with a polar code partitioned into a plurality of sub-blocks each having a same block length (see col. 5, lines 3-23 and col. 7, lines 15-51) in accordance with a polar transformation associated with a modulation scheme, wherein each bit channel of the plurality of bit channels is associated with a respective reliability; de-interleave each code block of the plurality of code blocks (see figure 6, 620 and col.16, lines 42-64, a wireless receiver of de-interleaving coded soft bits) using a respective de-interleaver of a plurality of de-interleavers; and decode the plurality of de-interleaved code blocks in accordance with the polar code to obtain the information bit vector (see col. 5, lines 24-48, col. 6, lines 28-41, and col.17, lines 4-47). Chen does not explicitly teach a polar transformation associated with a modulation scheme. However, Afshar, an analogous art, teaches a polar transformation associated with a modulation scheme (see Afshar, col. 25, lines 4-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chen system using a polar transformation associated with a modulation scheme as taught by Afshar. This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a polar transformation associated with a modulation scheme would have provided reliable reception of transmitted data.
As per claim 2, Chen substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein bits of the information bit vector are mapped to respective bit locations associated with the plurality of sub-blocks (see Chen, col. 3, lines 33-45).
As per claim 3, Chen substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein a respective quantity of bits of the information bit vector is allocated to each sub-block of the plurality of sub-blocks in accordance with reliabilities respectively associated with the bits of the information bit vector, and wherein each code block of the plurality of code blocks comprises the respective quantity of bits of the information bit vector in accordance with bit positions (see Chen, (see Chen, col. 3, lines 12-24 and col.16, lines 42-64).
As per claim 4, Chen substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein respective sets of bits are divided into partitions allocated to bit channel sub-blocks for each sub-block of the plurality of sub-blocks in accordance with single-bit reliabilities respectively associated with the bit channel sub-blocks, and wherein the bit channel sub-blocks for each sub-block are selected from a plurality of bit channel sub-blocks in accordance with the single-bit reliabilities respectively associated with the bit channel sub-blocks (see Chen, col. 13, lines 8-67 to col. 14, lines 1-47).
As per claim 5, Chen substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein respective sets of bits are divided into partitions allocated to bit channel sub-blocks for each sub-block of the plurality of sub-blocks in accordance with a mutual information transfer function, and wherein the respective quantity of the bits is allocated to each sub-block of the plurality of sub-blocks in accordance with the mutual information transfer function (see Chen, col. 11, lines 26-67 to col. 12, lines 1-49).
As per claim 6, Chen substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein each code block of the plurality of code blocks is associated with a respective quantity of encoded bits, the respective quantity of the encoded bits being rate matched in accordance with the same block length of each sub-block (see Chen, col. 2, lines 62-67 to col. 3, lines 1-45 and col. 4, lines 25-50).
As per claim 7, Chen substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein a subset of the respective quantity of the encoded bits associated with each code block of the plurality of code blocks is shortened, the subset comprising a first quantity of the encoded bits at an end of the respective quantity of the encoded bits (see Chen, col. 2, lines 12-25 and see Chen, col. 9, lines 29-47).
As per claim 8, Chen substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein the first quantity of the encoded bits is equal to a difference between a total block length of the polar code and a length of a codeword comprising the plurality of code blocks divided by a quantity of the plurality of bit channels (see Chen, col. 2, lines 62-67 to col. 3, lines 1-45 and see Chen, col. 9, lines 29-47).
As per claim 9, Chen substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein a subset of the respective quantity of the encoded bits associated with each code block of the plurality of code blocks is punctured, the subset comprising a first quantity of the encoded bits at a beginning of the respective quantity of the encoded bits channels (see Chen, col. 2, lines 62-67 to col. 3, lines 1-45 and see Chen, col. 9, lines 29-47).
As per claim 10, Chen substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein the first quantity of the encoded bits is equal to a difference between a total block length of the polar code and a length of a codeword comprising the plurality of code blocks divided by a quantity of the plurality of bit channels (see Chen, col. 2, lines 62-67 to col. 3, lines 1-45 and see Chen, col. 9, lines 29-47).
As per claim 11, Chen substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein a subset of the respective quantity of the encoded bits for one or more code blocks from the plurality of code blocks is shortened, the subset of the respective quantity of the encoded bits comprising a first quantity of the encoded bits at an end of the respective quantity of the encoded bits associated with the one or more code blocks, and all of the encoded bits associated with one or more other code blocks from the plurality of code blocks are shortened channels (see Chen, col. 2, lines 62-67 to col. 3, lines 1-45).
As per claim 12, Chen substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein the one or more other code blocks are associated with a capacity level of 1 channel (see Chen, col. 2, lines 51-67 to col. 3, lines 1-45).
As per claim 13, Chen substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein a subset of the respective quantity of the encoded bits for one or more code blocks from the plurality of code blocks is punctured, the subset of the respective quantity of the encoded bits comprising a first quantity of the encoded bits at a beginning of the respective quantity of the encoded bits associated with the one or more code blocks, and all of the encoded bits associated with one or more other code blocks of the plurality of code blocks are punctured channels (see Chen, col. 2, lines 62-67 to col. 3, lines 1-32) and col. 3, lines 33-45).
As per claim 14, Chen substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein the one or more other code blocks are associated with a capacity level of 0 channels (see Chen, col. 2, lines 62-67 to col. 3, lines 1-45 and see Chen, col. 9, lines 29-47).
As per claim 15, Chen substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein a total block length of the polar code is equal to N, and wherein the same block length of each sub- block of the plurality of sub-blocks is equal to N divided by a quantity of the plurality of bit channels (see Chen, col. 9, lines 29-47).
As per claim 17, Chen substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein bits of the information bit vector are mapped to respective bit locations associated with the plurality of sub-blocks (see Chen, col. 3, lines 33-45).
As per claim 18, Chen substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein a respective quantity of bits of the information bit vector is allocated to each sub-block of the plurality of sub-blocks in accordance with reliabilities respectively associated with the bits of the information bit vector, and wherein each code block of the plurality of code blocks comprises the respective quantity of bits of the information bit vector in accordance with bit positions (see Chen, col. 2, lines 62-67 to col. 3, lines 1-45 and see Chen, col. 9, lines 29-47).
As per claim 19, Chen substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein each code block of the plurality of code blocks is associated with a respective quantity of encoded bits, the respective quantity of the encoded bits being rate matched in accordance with the same block length of e ach sub-block (see Chen, col. 2, lines 62-67 to col. 3, lines 1-45 and see Chen, col. 9, lines 29-47).
Claim 16 and 20, these claims are directed to a method and computer readable medium and are rejected for the same reasons as in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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, 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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dikarev et al. (U.S. PN: 11,664,825) teaches polar coding and decoding for NR (New Radio) systems between UE(s) (User Equipment(s)) and/or gNB(s) (next generation Node B(s)) based on code block segmentation. One example embodiment employable at a UE comprises processing circuitry configured to determine one or more thresholds for code block segmentation, where the one or more thresholds for code block segmentation includes one or more of a payload threshold (Kseg) or a code rate threshold (Rseg); determine to perform code block segmentation based on the one or more thresholds and at least one of a current payload (K) of an information block or a current code rate (R) for the information block; segment the information block into a plurality of segments; and encode each segment of the plurality of segments via a polar encoder with a code size (N) (abstract).
The examiner also requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d) (1) requires such support in the Specification for any new language added to the claims and 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) requires support be found in the Drawings for all claimed features.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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, 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 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
