DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because descriptive labels other than numerical are needed for Figure 1-6. See 37 CFR 1.84(o). A proposed drawing correction or corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program comprising instructions must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 include limitations, which recite reference characters enclosed within parentheses, and therefore such limitations do not carry patentable weigh. The use of reference characters is to be considered as having no effect on the scope of the claims. Appropriate correction is required, by removing the limitations in the parenthesis. See MPEP § 608.01(m). However, the use of acronyms enclosed within parentheses, such as “(LSSD)” is appropriate.
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “forward error correction, FEC, codewords” should read “forward error correction (FEC) codewords”, removing the commas on either side of FEC and enclosing FEC in parenthesis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15:
This claim recites the limitations “A non-volatile computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program comprising instructions, which, when executed by an apparatus that is configured to execute the computer program, cause the apparatus to perform the method of operating processors of claim 1”. The specification does not disclose a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium and a computer program comprising instructions. Therefore, it is not known how the non-volatile computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program comprising instructions is included in the apparatus in a way for the apparatus to execute the stored instructions. As such, this claim is rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 USC 101 since the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 15 recites a computer program product that includes a computer-readable storage medium which is not described in the specification and thus appears to cover both transitory and non-transitory embodiments. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is required to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
Normally, the Examiner suggests that the Applicant add the limitation “non-transitory computer readable medium" to the claim(s) in order to properly render the claims in statutory form, however, the originally filed specification does not describe anything in claim 15. It is merely claimed, but not disclosed. See the rejection under 35 USC § 112(a) above.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DAVIDE et al. (EP 3331180 A1), hereinafter DAVIDE.
Claim 1:
DAVIDE teaches a method of operating processors (108) for decoding forward error correction, FEC, codewords (¶ [0040]), wherein the method comprises
determining (304, 604) a rate of an increment in processors (108) that are active for decoding FEC codewords (the proposed decoding scheme can be extended to avoid excessive heat production and power consumption by measuring the long term activity (or average number of active units) and kept the available number of decoding units under control by a supervisor unit. The supervisor unit will inform the scheduler on how many decoding units can be used for decoding by applying the following rules: If the average number of active units exceeds a given first threshold, the number of available units will be incrementally reduced; If the average number of active units is below a given second threshold, the number of available units will be incrementally increased, ¶ [0071]), and
inhibiting (116) activation of a processor (108) for decoding FEC codewords when the rate of the increment is larger than a first threshold (If the average number of active units exceeds a given first threshold, the number of available units will be incrementally reduced, ¶ [0071]).
Claims 8 and 15:
These claims recite similar features as claim 1 and are rejected as such.
Claims 2 and 9:
DAVIDE teaches determining (604) a rate of a decrement in processors (108) that are active for decoding FEC codewords, and inhibiting (128) deactivation of a processor (108) for decoding FEC codewords when the rate of the decrement is larger than a second threshold (the proposed decoding scheme can be extended to avoid excessive heat production and power consumption by measuring the long term activity (or average number of active units) and kept the available number of decoding units under control by a supervisor unit. The supervisor unit will inform the scheduler on how many decoding units can be used for decoding by applying the following rules: If the average number of active units exceeds a given first threshold, the number of available units will be incrementally reduced; If the average number of active units is below a given second threshold, the number of available units will be incrementally increased, ¶ [0071]).
Claims 3 and 10:
DAVIDE teaches sending an indication (128) to inhibit deactivation of a processor (108) for decoding FEC codewords when the rate of the decrement is larger than the second threshold (the proposed decoding scheme can be extended to avoid excessive heat production and power consumption by measuring the long term activity (or average number of active units) and kept the available number of decoding units under control by a supervisor unit. The supervisor unit will inform the scheduler on how many decoding units can be used for decoding by applying the following rules: If the average number of active units exceeds a given first threshold, the number of available units will be incrementally reduced; If the average number of active units is below a given second threshold, the number of available units will be incrementally increased, ¶ [0071]).
Claims 4 and 11:
DAVIDE teaches sending (116) an indication to inhibit activation of a processor (108) for decoding FEC codewords when the rate of the increment is larger than the first threshold (the proposed decoding scheme can be extended to avoid excessive heat production and power consumption by measuring the long term activity (or average number of active units) and kept the available number of decoding units under control by a supervisor unit. The supervisor unit will inform the scheduler on how many decoding units can be used for decoding by applying the following rules: If the average number of active units exceeds a given first threshold, the number of available units will be incrementally reduced; If the average number of active units is below a given second threshold, the number of available units will be incrementally increased, ¶ [0071]).
Claims 5 and 12:
DAVIDE teaches receiving a first input (112) indicating a count of processors (108) that are activated in a time slot, wherein the count of one indicates that one processor (108) is activated in the time slot, wherein the count of zero indicates that no processor is activated in the time slot, and receiving a second input (114) indicating a count of processors that are deactivated in the processing of FEC codewords in the time slot, wherein the count of one indicates that one processor (108) is deactivated in the time slot, wherein the count of zero indicates that no processor is deactivated in the time slot, and determining (304, 604) the rate of increment or the rate of decrement depending on the first input and the second input (See time slots, ¶ [0050]).
Claims 6 and 13:
DAVIDE teaches determining (304, 604) the rate of increment or the rate of decrement depending on a difference (120) between the first input (112) and the second input (114), wherein the difference (120) of minus one indicates that no processor is activated and one processor (108) is deactivated in the time slot, wherein the difference (120) of plus one indicates that one processor (108) is activated and no processor is deactivated in the time slot, wherein the difference (120) of zero indicates that no processor is activated and no processor is deactivated in the time slot (See sleeping mode for y time slots, ¶ [0050] and ¶¶ [0068]-[0072]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAVIDE et al. (EP 3331180 A1), hereinafter DAVIDE.
Claims 7 and 14:
DAVIDE does not explicitly teach applying a low pass filter to the difference for determining the rate of increment or the rate of decrement. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to use a low pass filter on the difference output of DAVIDE. The artisan would be motivated to do so because the use of low pass filters to smooth out the difference between two data points to remove sudden, sharp changes or "noise" is well known in the art and a person with ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Castrillon et al. (US-11424766) teaches a method and device for energy-efficient decoders. The decoder device can include a plurality of decoder modules configured to process an input data signal having a plurality of forward error correction (FEC) codewords. This plurality of decoder modules can include at least a first decoder followed by a second decoder. The first decoder can be low-power to first eliminate most of the errors of the codewords and the second decoder can be high-performance to correct the remaining errors. Alternatively, the first decoder can be high-performance to correct the codewords until the low-power decoder can correct the remaining errors. A classifier module can be included to determine portions of the codewords to be directed to any one of the plurality of decoder modules. These implementations can be extended to use additional decoders with different decoding algorithms and optimized to maximize decoder performance given a maximum power constraint. (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J TABONE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3827. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 7 PM EST.
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.
/JOHN J TABONE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111 07/11/2026
Prosecution Insights