Application No. 15/619,081
`Reply to Office Action dated August 20, 2019
`
`REMARKS
`
`After entry of the foregoing amendment, claims 1—10 will be pending in the
`
`present application. Claims 1 and 10 are amended. Applicant submits that no new matter has
`
`been added to the application.
`
`Allowable SubieciMailer.‘
`
`Claim 8 is allowable. Applicant thanks the Examiner for indicating the allowable
`
`subject matter but believes broader subject matter is available.
`
`Claims Reieclions 735 US. C. §1033
`
`Claims 1—7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable
`
`over US. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0260159 to Zhang et al. (hereinafter
`
`“Zhang”), US. Patent No. 8,271,850 to Eflmov et al. (hereinafter “Eflmov”) and US. Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2015/0282068 to Raj agopal et al. (hereinafter “Raj agopal”).
`
`The Office Action (at page 3) appears to acknowledge that Zhang does not teach
`
`or suggest “the transmission circuitry includes an encoding circuitry, and the encoding circuitry,
`
`in operation, performs Low Density Parity Check (LDPC) encoding on the PPDU by encoding
`
`the legacy header and the non-legacy header to generate a first codeword” as was preViously
`
`recited in claim 1. The Office Action cited Ef1mov as disclosing “use of an encoder for creating
`
`a low density parity check (LDPC) codeword for message transmission, in which message bits
`
`are encoded into a codeword.”
`
`Claim 1, as amended, recites in part:
`
`A wireless communication deVice, comprising:
`
`a transmission circuitry, which in operation, transmits the PPDU, wherein:
`the transmission circuitry includes an encoding circuitry, and
`the encoding circuitry, in operation, performs Low Density Parity Check
`(LDPC) encoding on the PPDU, wherein a single LDPC codeword is generated
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/619,081
`Reply to Office Action dated August 20, 2019
`
`by encoding the legacy header and the non-legacy header, the non-legacy header
`in the single LDPC codeword including a field indicating a channel bandwidth.
`(Emphasis added)
`
`Efimov discloses “a method for encoding a low-density parity-check (LDPC)
`
`codeword,” where “message bits to be encoded are received as message blocks,” and “where the
`
`message bits are partitioned into blocks of message bits.” Ef1mov discloses that “the message
`
`bits may be encoded in a low-density parity-check codeword that includes message bits and
`
`parity-check bits” and that “in response to receiving a block of message bits, some or all of the
`
`parity-check bits, to be generated as part of the LDPC codeword, may be partially computed
`
`before all the message bits are received” (Column 2, lines 27—3 8).
`
`However, Applicant submits that Ef1mov does not disclose or suggest at least the
`
`above-italicized elements of amended claim 1. Ef1mov does not disclose or suggest that “a
`
`single LDPC codeword is generated by encoding the legacy header and the non-legacy header”
`
`as recited in amended claim 1.
`
`Per Ef1mov, message bits are partitioned into blocks and the message bits may be
`
`encoded in an LDPC codeword. However, Ef1mov does not disclose the details of amended
`
`claim 1. Eflmov does not disclose that a single LDPC codeword is generated by encoding the
`
`legacy header and the non-legacy header. Ef1mov discloses that bits are partitioned and encoded
`
`in an LDPC codeword. However, there is no disclosure or suggestion in Ef1mov of both a legacy
`
`and a non-legacy header being encoded in a generated single LDPC codeword. Ef1mov is silent
`
`on encoding any combination of different headers of different types (legacy and non-legacy) into
`
`one single LDPC codeword.
`
`Raj agopal, which was cited as disclosing that the non-legacy header includes a
`
`field indicating a channel bandwidth, does not cure the deficiencies of Zhang and Efimov and
`
`does not disclose or suggest the above-discussed elements of amended claim 1. Raj agopal does
`
`not disclose LDCP coding or codeword generation.
`
`Thus, claim 1 is patentable in view of Zhang, Ef1mov and Raj agopal. Withdrawal
`
`of the pending 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claim 1 is respectfully requested.
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/619,081
`Reply to Office Action dated August 20, 2019
`
`Furthermore, claims 2—7 and 9 are dependent on claim 1 and are, therefore,
`
`patentable in view of the cited references for at least the same reasons recited above and by
`
`virtue of the additional claim features set forth therein. Accordingly, withdrawal of the 35
`
`U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 2—7 and 9 is respectfully requested.
`
`Although not identical in scope or language, the allowability of claim 10 will be
`
`apparent in view of the reasons recited above. Accordingly, withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. §103
`
`rejection of claim 10 is respectfully requested.
`
`The Director is authorized to charge any additional fees due by way of this
`
`Amendment, or credit any overpayment, to our Deposit Account No. 19-1090.
`
`Applicant submits that the pending claims are allowable. Favorable consideration
`
`and a Notice of Allowance are earnestly solicited.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`SEED Intellectual Property Law Group LLP
`
`/Baha A. Obeidat/
`
`Baha A. Obeidat
`
`Registration No. 66,827
`
`BAOzdjs
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, Washington 98104-7092
`Phone:
`(206) 622-4900
`Fax: (206) 682-6031
`
`695507771
`
`