DETAILED ACTION
Application filed 6/10/25 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 1-20 are pending.
Specification and drawings are accepted.
IDS has been considered. PTO-1449 is attached.
Application is pending.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 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
260
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus that uses a transmitter and at least one processor.
Under prong 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, the claim falls in a statutory category of an apparatus or device.
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 determining a second parity check matrix from first parity check matrix. Specifically, the claim states, “…determine, based on at least a first parity check matrix of a first quasi-cyclic-low-density parity-check (QC-LDPC) code according to a code rate R of 3/4, a second parity check matrix for a second QC-LDPC code, wherein the second QC-LDPC code has a code block size that is four time a code block size of the first QC-LDPC code…”
This part of the claim recites general data computation and manipulation which is considered to be abstract and mathematical in nature.
The computation of the second QC-LDPC 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 limitations of “transmitter” and “processor” recited in the claim are considered to be well-known, routine and conventional.
These elements 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 circuit.
Therefore the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the transmitter and the processor are all considered generic, well-known routine and conventional.
Independent claims 9 and 17 are rejected for similar reasons. Under prong 1, claim 9 is directed to a method and claim 17 is directed to an apparatus at the receiving end. Remaining reasons are similar to claim 1. Respective dependent claims do not recite anything significantly more than the abstract ideas and therefore are rejected as well.
Corrections are requested.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19233753.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example, claim 1 of the present application recites:
PNG
media_image2.png
268
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Whereas claim 1 of U.S. patent application ‘753 recites:
PNG
media_image3.png
260
646
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In both sets of claims, the difference is the code rate of 5/6 and 3/4. This is considered to be an obvious engineering design choice that is selected based on particular application. Therefore the claims are not patentably distinct and are obvious variations of each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19233767.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example, claim 1 of the present application recites:
PNG
media_image2.png
268
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Whereas claim 1 of U.S. patent application ‘767 recites:
PNG
media_image4.png
266
648
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In both sets of claims, the difference is the code rate of 5/6 and 1/2. This is considered to be an obvious engineering design choice that is selected based on particular application. Therefore the claims are not patentably distinct and are obvious variations of each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19233776.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example, claim 1 of the present application recites:
PNG
media_image2.png
268
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Whereas claim 1 of U.S. patent application ‘776 recites:
PNG
media_image5.png
264
684
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In both sets of claims, the difference is the code rate of 5/6 and 2/3. This is considered to be an obvious engineering design choice that is selected based on particular application. Therefore the claims are not patentably distinct and are obvious variations of each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached.
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
