Patent Application 18500144 - System And Method For Decoding Using Parallel

Title: System And Method For Decoding Using Parallel Processing

Application Information

Invention Title: System And Method For Decoding Using Parallel Processing
Application Number: 18500144
Submission Date: 2025-04-08T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2023-11-02T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2023-11-02T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 375
National Sub-Class: 240130
Examiner Employee Number: 77856
Art Unit: 3992
Tech Center: 3900

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 1
103 Rejections: 0

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

DETAILED ACTION
This office action addresses claims 1-20 as set forth in the Applicant’s response filed on February 18, 2025.
On February 18, 2025, the Applicant filed a Petition Under 37 C.F.R.1.182.
On April 2, 2025 a Decision was made with respect to the Applicant’s petition. As set forth therein, the Applicant’s petition to convert the instant regular utility application to a continuation reissue application was dismissed.
The Examiner determines that in accordance with the Decision, the instant application will continue to be examined as a Bauman type non-provisional application, that is, a regular utility application.
Bauman Type Non-Provisional Application
The instant application was identified, on filing, as a continuation of Application No. 17/200,761, which was is a reissue of US Patent Application No. 15/165,577 (US Patent No. 10,230,986). See the Application Data Sheet (ADS) and the first paragraph of the specification, which were filed on November 2, 2023 as part of the original filing of the instant application.

The mere fact that an application purports to be a continuation or divisional of a parent reissue application does not make it a reissue application itself because it is possible to file a 35 USC 111(a) continuing application of a reissue application. See In re Bauman, 683 F.2d 405, 409, 214 USPQ 585, 589 (CCPA 1982) (a patentee may file a regular continuation of a reissue application that obtains the benefit of the reissue application’s filing date). Accordingly, in order for a continuation or divisional of a parent reissue application to be treated as a reissue application itself, there must be an identification, on filing, that the application is a “continuation reissue application” or a “divisional reissue application”, as opposed to a Bauman type continuing application. Indicia that a continuation or divisional reissue application is being filed are:
A 37 CFR 1.175 reissue oath/declaration, which is not merely a copy of the parent’s reissue oath/declaration.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale

A specification and/or claims in proper double column reissue format per 37 CFR 1.173.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale

Amendments in proper format per 37 CFR 1.173.
A 37 CFR 3.73 statement of assignee ownership and consent by assignee
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
A correct transmittal letter (preferably Form PTO/AIA /50) identifying the application as a reissue filing under 35 U.S.C. § 251.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale

An identification of the application as being “a reissue continuation of Application No. [the parent reissue application]”, or “an application for reissue of Patent No. [the original patent sought to be reissued] and a continuation of Application No. [the parent reissue application]”, or equivalent language that identifies the application as both a continuation and a reissue application1. The same applies for a divisional reissue application, with the word “divisional” substituted for “continuation”.

See MPEP 1451.

The instant application was not filed with any of the above-listed indicia of a continuation reissue application. Rather, the ADS and the first paragraph of the specification filed as part of the original application papers both identify the instant application as a continuation of reissue Application No. 17/200,761, which is a reissue of US Patent No. 10,230,986. Thus, the instant application was not identified, on filing, as both a continuation and a reissue application. Accordingly, the instant application:
Was processed as a 35 USC 111(a) continuing application of a reissue application. See the Filing Receipt mailed on July 18, 2023.
Will be examined as a Bauman type continuing application, i.e., a 35 USC 111(a) continuing application of a reissue application. Again see MPEP 1451.

As established by In re Bauman, a Bauman type continuing application:
Receives the benefit of the actual filing date of the parent reissue application.
Does not receive the benefit of the filing date of the patent sought to be reissued by the parent reissue application because the copendency requirement of 35 USC 120 is not met.
Accordingly, the effective filing date of the instant Bauman type continuing application is March 12, 2021, i.e., the actual filing date of reissue Application No. 17/200,761.

In a Bauman type continuing application, the patent sought to be reissued by the parent (or grandparent) reissue application is available as prior art under pre-AIA 35 USC 102(b) or AIA 35 USC 102(a)(1) with respect to the Bauman type continuing application if the parent (or grandparent) reissue application was filed more than one year after the grant date of the patent.

In this case, US Patent No. 10,230,986 (i.e., the patent sought to be reissued by the parent reissue application) qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 USC 102(b) or AIA 35 USC 102(a)(1) with respect to the instant Bauman type continuing application because parent reissue Application No. 17/200,761 was filed more than one year after the grant date of Patent No. 10,230,986.
Option to Convert Bauman Type Application to Reissue Application
Should applicant desire that this application be treated as a continuation/divisional reissue application, as opposed to a Bauman type continuing application, applicant may file a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 to have this application treated as a continuation/divisional reissue application under 35 USC 251. Applicant should point out in the petition what, as of the filing date in the record, supports the filing as a reissue application under 35 USC 251. Further, applicant should ensure the application fulfills all of the requirements for a reissue application. See 35 USC 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.173 and 1.175. With respect to the required fees, see 37 CFR 1.16(e), (n) and (r).

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –

(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by US Patent No. 10,230,986.
It is noted that the instant application and the Patent No. 10,230,986 share the same disclosure. As explained above, Patent No. 10,230,986 qualifies as prior art under AIA 35 USC 102(b) with respect to the instant Bauman type non-provisional application.
Therefore, all claims are clearly anticipated by US Patent 10,230,986.

Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ovidio Escalante whose telephone number is (571)272-7537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday - 6:00 AM to 2:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-1367. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.

/Ovidio Escalante/
Primary Examiner
Central Reexamination Unit - Art Unit 3992
(571) 272-7537

Conferees:
/MATTHEW E HENEGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /MICHAEL FUELLING/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992

1 In contrast, a Bauman type continuing application is identified as “a continuation of reissue Application No. [the parent reissue application], or “a continuation of reissue Application No. [the parent reissue application], which is an application for reissue of Patent No. [the original patent sought to be reissued by the parent reissue application]”. The same applies for a Bauman type divisional application, with the word “divisional” substituted for “continuation”.