DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Abstract
3. The abstract of the disclosure is acceptable for examination purposes.
Oath Declaration
4. The Oath complies with all the requirements set forth in MPEP 602 and therefore is accepted.
Drawings
5. The drawings received on 05/16/2025 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The references listed in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/09/2025 & 12/22/2025 have been considered. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO- 1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Claim Objections
7. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite " wherein a difference between a shifting value of each non-zero element in the a.sub.1.sup.th row and a shifting value of a non-zero element at a corresponding location in the b.sub.1.sup.th row remains the same, and/or a difference between a shifting value of each non-zero element in the a.sub.1.sup.th row and a shifting value of a non-zero element at a corresponding location in the b.sub.1.sup.th row remains the same." The feature of "a difference between a shifting value of each non-zero element in the a.sub.1.sup.th row and a shifting value of a non-zero element at a corresponding location in the b.sub.1.sup.th row remains the same" is repeated twice in claim 7. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
8. 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 1, the claim recites "a sum of column weights of non-extended columns of the LDPC base graph is equal to a sum of column weights of non-extended columns of the storage matrix; and sending the LDPC coding bit sequence." The phrase of “non-extended columns” (emphasis added), it is unclear in the claim as that what is meant by reliable data, thus rendering the claim ambiguous.
Other independent claim 20 recites similar limitations of claim 1. Therefore, is rejected for the same reason of claim 1. Dependent claims 2-19 depend from the base claim 1 and inherently include limitations therein and therefore are rejected under 35 USC 112, 2nd paragraph as well.
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.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1:
At Step 1, is the claim directed to a processor, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes, see MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process, and thus directed to a statutory category. At step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes, see MPEP 2106.04. The claim recites “performing LDPC encoding on the information bit sequence based on an LDPC base graph, to obtain an LDPC coding bit sequence, wherein the LDPC base graph is obtained based on a storage matrix and indication information, the indication information indicates a correspondence between rows of the storage matrix or a correspondence between rows of the LDPC base graph, and a sum of column weights of non-extended columns of the LDPC base graph is equal to a sum of column weights of non-extended columns of the storage matrix,” as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation , covers a mathematical relationship of the mathematical concept grouping. The terms of the claims are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls into the mathematical relationship as part of the mathematical grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. At step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, see MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites additional limitations of “obtaining an information bit sequence; and sending the LDPC coding bit sequence” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because are generic computer function of data mere data gathering and data sending. These extra-solution activities do not provide practical application. At step 2B, Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception? NO, see MPEP 2106.05. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 20:
At Step 1, is the claim directed to a processor, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes, see MPEP 2106.03. The claim is directed to a communication apparatus, and therefore, a machine/manufacture, and thus directed to a statutory category. At step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes, see MPEP 2106.04. The claim recites “performing LDPC encoding on the information bit sequence based on an LDPC base graph, to obtain an LDPC coding bit sequence, wherein the LDPC base graph is obtained based on a storage matrix and indication information, the indication information indicates a correspondence between rows of the storage matrix or a correspondence between rows of the LDPC base graph, and a sum of column weights of non-extended columns of the LDPC base graph is equal to a sum of column weights of non-extended columns of the storage matrix,” as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation , covers a mathematical relationship of the mathematical concept grouping. The terms of the claims are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls into the mathematical relationship as part of the mathematical grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. At step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, see MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites additional element/s of “obtaining an information bit sequence; and sending the LDPC coding bit sequence” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because are generic computer function of data mere data gathering and data sending. These extra-solution activities do not provide practical application. At step 2B, Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception? NO, see MPEP 2106.05. The claim recites additional element/s “a processor,” “a memory” are generic components that are well understood, routine and conventional and do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. See the prior art Jin at al. (US 20200127682 A1) teach well known elements. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-19 are extended elements of the abstract idea of the independent claims and the claims are abstract in nature falling withing the mathematical concept grouping. The dependent claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application rather they are mere instructions for performing the mathematical relationship of the mathematical concept grouping. The dependent claims do not add any meaningful limits to the abstract idea to improve the technology or the computer component and fails to add significantly more than the abstracts idea. Therefore, the dependent claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 nonobviousness.
10. Claims 1-5, 10, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2020/0127682 A1) "herein after as Jin" in view of Yang et al. (US 2015/0280743 A1 "herein after as Yang."
As per claims 1 and 20:
Jin substantially teaches or discloses a low-density parity check LDPC code-based communication method, comprising (see abstract; and paragraph [0081], herein An LDPC code used in a wireless communications system is a QC-LDPC code; and Fig. 5): obtaining an information bit sequence (see paragraph [0153], herein Obtain an input sequence; and Fig. 5, step 501); performing LDPC encoding on the information bit sequence based on an LDPC base graph, to obtain an LDPC coding bit sequence, wherein the LDPC base graph is obtained based on a storage matrix and indication information, the indication information indicates a correspondence between rows of the storage matrix or a correspondence between rows of the LDPC base graph (see paragraphs [0155]-[0158], herein Encode/decode the input sequence based on an LDPC matrix, where a base matrix of the LDPC matrix may be any base matrix in the foregoing examples. In one embodiment, the LDPC matrix may be obtained based on a lifting factor Z and the base matrix. In one embodiment, related parameters of the LDPC matrix may be saved, and these parameters include one or more of the following: (a) parameters used to obtain any base matrix listed in the foregoing embodiments. The base matrix may be obtained based on the parameters. For example, the parameters may include one or more of the following: a row index, a row weight, a position of a non-zero element, a shift value in the base matrix, a shift value of the non-zero element and a corresponding position, an offset, a lifting factor, a base graph, a code rate, and Fig. 5 step 502); and sending the LDPC coding bit sequence (see paragraph [0169], herein Output an encoded/decoded bit sequence, and Fig. 5 step 503).
Jin does not explicitly teach a sum of column weights of non-extended columns of the LDPC base graph is equal to a sum of column weights of non-extended columns of the storage matrix. However, Yang in the same the field of endeavor teaches a sum of column weights of non-extended columns of the LDPC base graph is equal to a sum of column weights of non-extended columns of the storage matrix (see paragraph [0060], herein Referring to FIG. 3, for the parent parity check matrix expressed in Equation (6), when a row separation factor S2 is 2, the first row 311 included in the parent parity check matrix is separated into 2 rows 313. In FIG. 3, C0 to C9 are indexes of each row of elements included in the first row 311, and C′0 to C′9 are indexes of each row of elements included in the 2 rows 313 , and in Fig. 3 does not change the sum of the column weights since the separated rows are orthogonal to one another and summing their elements restores the original row again (where -1 represents the all-zero matrix in Equation (5)). In the illustrated example, the column weights of the original row from left to right are {1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, O} and the sum of the column weights of the two separated rows is again {1, O, 0, O, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0} + {0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, O} = {1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, O, 0}). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Jin with the teachings of Yang by including a sum of column weights of non-extended columns of the LDPC base graph is equal to a sum of column weights of non-extended columns of the storage matrix. This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the sum of column weights of non-extended columns of the LDPC base graph is equal to a sum of column weights of non-extended columns of the storage matrix would have improved the LDPC code performance.
As per claim 2:
Jin teaches that wherein a code rate corresponding to the LDPC base graph is different from a code rate corresponding to the storage matrix (see paragraph [0104], herein To obtain a flexible code rate, a submatrix C, a submatrix D, and a submatrix E of corresponding sizes may be added based on a core matrix, to obtain different code rates).
As per claim 3:
Jin teaches that wherein the LDPC base graph comprises a first submatrix and a second submatrix, the first submatrix comprises the non-extended columns of the LDPC base graph, the second submatrix comprises extended columns of the LDPC base graph; a column weight of each of Q columns of the second submatrix is 2; and one of two non-zero elements comprised in a q.sup.th column in the Q columns corresponds to an i.sub.1.sup.th row of the first submatrix, (see paragraph [0082], herein A base graph of the QC-LDPC code having the raptor-like structure has a matrix size of m rows and n columns, and may include five submatrices: A, B, C, D, and E. A matrix weight is determined by a quantity of non-zero elements. A row weight is a quantity of non-zero elements included in a row, a column weight is a quantity of non-zero elements included in a column) the other one of the two non-zero elements comprised in the q.sup.th column in the Q columns corresponds to an i.sub.2.sup.th row of the first submatrix, the i.sub.1.sup.th row and the i.sub.2.sup.th row are orthogonal to each other, and the q.sup.th column is any one of the Q columns, wherein Q, q, i.sub.1, and i.sub.2 are all positive integers (see paragraph [0108], herein he row 5 to the row 41 in the base graph 30a may include a plurality of quasi-orthogonal rows and at least two orthogonal rows. For example, the row 5 to the row 41 in the base graph 30a include at least 15 rows meeting the quasi-orthogonal structure, and there is a maximum of only one non-zero element in a same column in columns other than the built-in punctured bit column in any two adjacent rows of the 15 rows. The row 5 to the row 41 in the base graph 30a may further include 10 to 26 rows meeting the orthogonal structure. In other words).
As per claim 4:
Jin teaches that wherein the LDPC base graph is an X×Y matrix, and a (y.sub.2+1).sup.th column to a Y.sup.th column of the LDPC base graph are extended columns; and the LDPC base graph comprises a submatrix A1, a submatrix B1, a submatrix C1, a submatrix D1, and a submatrix E1, wherein the submatrix A1 is a 1.sup.st row to an x.sub.1.sup.th row and a 1.sup.st column to a y.sub.1.sup.th column of the LDPC base graph, the submatrix B1 is the 1.sup.st row to the x.sub.1.sup.th row and a (y.sub.1+1).sup.th column to a y.sub.2.sup.th column of the LDPC base graph, the submatrix C1 is the 1.sup.st row to the x.sub.1.sup.th row and the (y.sub.2+1).sup.th column to the Y.sup.th column of the LDPC base graph, the submatrix D1 is an (x.sub.1+1).sup.th row to an X.sup.th row and the 1.sup.st column to the y.sub.2.sup.th column of the LDPC base graph, and the submatrix E1 is the (x.sub.1+1).sup.th row to the X.sup.th row and the (y.sub.2+1).sup.th column to the Y.sup.th column of the LDPC base graph, wherein 1≤x.sub.1≤X; 1≤y.sub.1≤y.sub.2≤Y; and x.sub.1, X, y.sub.1, y.sub.2, and Y are integers (see paragraphs [0075]-[0080], and Fig. 1), wherein elements on a diagonal of the submatrix E1 are non-zero elements, a non-zero element is comprised above the diagonal of the submatrix E1, and/or a non-zero element is comprised below the diagonal of the submatrix E1, and the submatrix C1 comprises a non-zero element (see paragraph [0082], herein A base graph of the QC-LDPC code having the raptor-like structure has a matrix size of m rows and n columns, and may include five submatrices: A, B, C, D, and E. A matrix weight is determined by a quantity of non-zero elements. A row weight is a quantity of non-zero elements included in a row, a column weight is a quantity of non-zero elements included in a column).
As per claim 5:
Jin teaches that wherein a form used for the indication information comprises at least one of an indication sequence, a mapping table, or a mapping pair (see paragraph [0028], herein The parameters of the LDPC matrix may include a row index, columns in which non-zero elements are located, and shift values of the non-zero elements, and are saved in forms of Table 3-10, Table 3-20, Table 3-30, Table 3-40, Table 3-50, Table 3-60, Table 3-70, and Table 3-80).
As per claim 10:
Jin teaches that wherein the indication information indicates the correspondence between the rows of the LDPC base graph, the storage matrix is used to store a connection relationship between a variable node and a check node, a shifting value of a non-zero element of the storage matrix is obtained based on a shifting value table, and the shifting value table is used to store shifting values of locations of non-extended rows of the storage matrix (see paragraph [0075], herein an LDPC code may be represented by a parity check matrix H. The parity check matrix H of the LDPC code may be obtained by using a base graph and a shift value. The base graph may usually include m×n matrix elements (entry), and may be represented by a matrix with m rows and n columns. A value of a matrix element is 0 or 1. An element whose value is 0 is also referred to as a zero element sometimes, indicating that the element may be replaced with a Z×Z all-zero matrix. An element whose value is 1 is also referred to as a non-zero element sometimes, indicating that the element may be replaced by a Z×Z circulant permutation matrix).
As per claim 11:
Jin teaches that wherein the indication information is in the form of the indication sequence, the LDPC base graph is obtained by reading the storage matrix and the shifting value table based on the indication sequence, the indication sequence comprises at least one row number, and an i.sub.3.sup.th row number in the at least one row number indicates that a shifting value of an i.sub.3.sup.th row of the LDPC base graph is determined based on a shifting value of a row identified by the i.sub.3.sup.th row number in the at least one row number, wherein i.sub.3 is a positive integer (see paragraph [0077]. Herein If a value of an element in a row i and a column j of the base graph is 1, a shift value of the element is P.sub.i,j, and P.sub.i,j is an integer greater than or equal to 0, it indicates that the element, in the row i and the column j, whose value is 1 may be replaced with a Z×Z circulant permutation matrix corresponding to P.sub.i,j. The circulant permutation matrix may be obtained by performing a right cyclic shift on a Z×Z identity matrix for P.sub.i,j times. It may be learned that, in the base graph, each element whose value is 0 is replaced with a Z×Z all-zero matrix, and each element whose value is 1 is replaced with a Z×Z circulant permutation matrix corresponding to a shift value of the element, so that the parity check matrix of the LDPC code can be obtained).
As per claim 19:
Yang teaches that wherein the indication information is in the form of the indication sequence, the LDPC base graph is obtained by merging the storage matrix based on the indication sequence, the indication sequence comprises a plurality of pieces of sub-information, each of the plurality of pieces of sub-information indicates two rows to be merged in the storage matrix, and an arrangement order of the plurality of pieces of sub-information is a merging order (see paragraphs [0055]-[0056], herein The conversion information generation unit 215 inputs control information, generates conversion information, and outputs the conversion information to the parity check matrix generation unit 213. The conversion information may include a scaling factor, a row separation factor, or a row merge factor, and a row separation pattern or a row merge pattern. If the conversion information includes the row separation factor, the row separation pattern is included in the conversion information. If the conversion information includes the row merge factor, the row merge pattern is included in the conversion information. It will be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that the row separation pattern and the merge pattern may be implemented in various formats).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 6 and 12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Dependent claims 7-9 and 13-18 is/are depend from allowable dependent claims 6 and 12 respectively and inherently include limitations therein and therefore are allowed as well.
Examiner Notes
12. When amending the claims, applicants are respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Prior Art
13. The prior art of record, considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, is listed in the attached PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSMAN ALSHACK whose telephone number is (571)272-2069. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:30 AM-5:00 PM EST, also please fax interview request to (571) 273- 2069. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ALBERT DECADY can be reached on 5712723819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/OSMAN M ALSHACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights