DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process and mathematical concept without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method for iteratively decoding data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons.
The revised patent eligibility guidelines requires a two-prong analysis under step 2A. In prong one, it is determined that the claimed limitations are directed to a mental process. For example:
decoding, in a first iteration, each of one or more component codes corresponding to the data by performing a first number of enumerations over hypotheses (paragraph 38, BCH decoding algorithm, for example described in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCH_code);
determining, in the first iteration, an extrinsic value output for each of the component codes based on log-likelihood ratios (LLRs) of one or more error bits of a codeword (expressed by Equation 12 in paragraph 74);
determining a second number of enumerations based on the extrinsic value (selecting a particular element from a list as explained in paragraph 124 on pages 41-42: “the circuit may be configured to determine the second number to be an enumeration number at a location of the enumeration list next to the first location”); and
decoding, in a second iteration, each component code by performing the second number of enumerations over hypotheses (paragraph 38, BCH decoding algorithm, for example described in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCH_code).
are all steps of a mental process for example that can be performed by a human using pen and paper. In prong two, it is determined whether any additional elements rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The additional elements to the abstract method are as follows: a non-volatile storage device. The storage device serves to provide data for the method and is an example of data gathering. Mere data gathering is an example of an activity found to be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05g). Therefore, these additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 2-6 and 12-16 (comparing values in a list), 7 and 17 (defining a set of decoding rules accord to BCH), 8 (determining whether a logical condition is met), 9 (comparing a value to zero), and 10 (determining whether a logical condition is met) are further directed to mental processes for the reasons provided.
In step 2B, an evaluation is made as to whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. The analysis is the same as laid out in step 2A above, and therefore the conclusion is the same: claims 1-17 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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, 7-11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Steiner et al (US Pat. Pub. 2011/0214039; hereinafter referred to as Steiner).
As per claims 1 and 11: Steiner teaches a system and method for decoding data stored in a non-volatile storage device, comprising:
decoding, in a first iteration (paragraph 133, Table 1), each of one or more component codes corresponding to the data (paragraphs 25 and 31) by performing a first number of enumerations over hypotheses (paragraph 108 and paragraph 34: “For a codeword of k information bits, the number of different possible bit values (for binary (0) or (1) bits) is 2k. Each of the (2k) combinations
of different bit values may be a hypothesis or potential "candidate" error correction for the codeword”);
determining, in the first iteration, an extrinsic value output for each of the component codes based on log-likelihood ratios (LLRs) of one or more error bits of a codeword (paragraph 42, scaled LLR obtained by boosting);
determining a second number of enumerations (paragraph 147) based on the extrinsic value (last sentence of paragraph 42; paragraph 188); and
decoding, in a second iteration, each component code by performing the second number of enumerations over hypotheses (paragraph 175).
As per claims 7 and 17:
Steiner further teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11, wherein each component code is a Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenghem (BCH) code (paragraphs 123 and 217).
As per claim 8: Steiner further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein decoding is successful after the second iteration if a termination condition is reached (paragraphs 179 and 202).
As per claim 9: Steiner further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the termination condition comprises a CRC signature equaling zero (paragraph 80).
As per claim 10: Steiner further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein decoding is declared a failure after the second iteration if a maximum number of iterations is reached (paragraph 130).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art are directed to folded component codes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at 571-270-3750. 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.
/STEVE N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111