DETAILED ACTION
Applicants' response filed 12/16/25 has been considered.
Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended.
Rejections under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn in light of amendments
Applicants have amended the claims in order to overcome under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. However, the newly added limitations to claims 1 and 10 are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Therefore the 101 rejection is explained in detail and maintained. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-5, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
A memory system, comprising: a memory device configured to output a codeword; and a controller configured to perform a decoding operation, which comprises iterative operations, each iterative operation comprising plural sub-iterative operations, by: establish, from the codeword, a plurality of variable nodes and a plurality of check nodes; and check a number of check-sum updates during a single cycle of the decoding operation; compare the number of check-sum updates with a threshold set to be less than a number of the check nodes; perform or delay at least some part of the decoding operation to ensure that the number of check-sum updates does not exceed the threshold based on a comparison result.
The claim recites that the controller is configured to check a number of check-sum updates during a single cycle of the decoding operation; compare the number of check-sum updates with a threshold set to be less than a number of the check node and perform or delay at least some part of the decoding operation to ensure that the number of check-sum updates does not exceed the threshold based on a comparison result. Thus, limitation (b) recites a concept that falls into the “mathematical algorithms or concepts” such as (mathematical calculations or mathematical relationship) groups of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements “memory device and controller” in the claim limitation This additional element represents mere data gathering (performing decoding operations, establishing plurality of variable nodes and plurality of check nodes, obtaining checksum update values and threshold set values) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (for comparing or computing checksum update values and threshold set values using mathematical algorithm) and is recited at a high level of generality. Further the controller is also an additional element which is configured to perform a decoding operation, establish a plurality of variable nodes and a plurality of check nodes; and check a number of check-sum updates and compare the number of check-sum updates with a threshold set to be less than a number of the check nodes. i.e., it is the tool that is used to obtain update checksum and threshold set results and perform the mathematical calculations and numeric conversions. But the controller is recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that it is a “controller”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. Further, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of a general-purpose computer is insufficient to raise the level of the abstract algorithm to a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the claim amount to no more than linking the abstract idea to a field of use and performing well-understood, routine and conventional extra-solution activities. Additionally, the elements of “a memory device” and “a controller” merely apply the exception using generic components, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Considering the additional elements individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 10 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The same or similar reasoning is given as applied above for claim 1.
The Dependent claims 1-5 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter as they fail to remedy the independent claims.
Allowable subject matter
Claims 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten independent from including all of the limitation of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 8AM-4:30PM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner'ssupervisor, 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