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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which all pending claims are rejected.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process without significantly more. For example, claim 1 recite(s) a structure implemented at an electronic device for data validation. 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 that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper". For example: “obtaining a data block..; identifying a plurality of variable nodes and a plurality of check nodes, …; … determining check node data …. satisfies a data validity condition; and determining a conversion factor …; identifying a first set of check nodes …; determining a scaling factor based on at least the conversion factor; and determining variable node data … by at least applying the scaling factor to the check node data ….” - are all steps of a mental process.
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 plurality of check nodes and variable nodes are part of LDPC decoding. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f). Therefore, these additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
In step 2B, an evaluation is made as to whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. As claim 1 recites ‘obtaining …data bits; identifying a plurality of variable nodes and a plurality of check nodes; determining a conversion factor and a scaling factor; determining variable node data etc.’ but after doing all these mathematical steps of ‘determining’ there is no decoding or any other steps to transform an abstract idea into a practical application. Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a practical application is the transformation of an abstract idea—such as a mathematical formula, algorithm, or method of organizing human activity—into a concrete, useful, and technically improved process or product. When an abstract idea is missing this practical application, it is deemed a "judicial exception" and is ineligible for a patent. The analysis is the same as laid out in step 2A above, and therefore, the conclusion is the same: claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-18 are further directed to a mental process for the following reasons:
Claims 2-9 and 12-14 are directed to perform various steps of mathematical computations of determining scaling factor and/or conversion factor (See [Figs. 6-7, 9-10] & [0133,0137-0141]).
Claims 10-11 and 15-17 are directed to determining input raw bit error rate (RBER) based on a syndrome weight (See [0077,0088-0090]).
Claim 19 and 20 recites limitations similar to claim 1, are also rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the pending 35 USC § 101 rejection and all remaining pending objections and rejections (if any) are overcome.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claims are allowable because in interpreting the claims, in light of the specification, the examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of record. The prior art made of record does not teach or fairly suggest the combination of elements, as recited in independent claims 1, 19 and 20.
The closest prior art of record found in the search and cited Chang et al. (US 2020/0059243 A1) teaches, [0008] According to an embodiment, the method further comprises determining, for a symbol value of the codeword, a number of satisfied check nodes and a number of unsatisfied check nodes for a decoding result of the hard decision decoding; generating a soft log-likelihood ratio (LLR) for the symbol value based on the number of satisfied check nodes and the number of unsatisfied check nodes; and performing the soft decision decoding on the codeword using the soft LLR as an input. [0009] … the soft LLR for the symbol value is generated based on a difference between the number of satisfied check nodes and the number of unsatisfied check nodes. [0010] … the soft LLR for the symbol value is generated according to an equation P=((#S−#U)*Q+1)*D*X, in which #S is the number of satisfied check nodes, #U is the number of unsatisfied check nodes, Q is a scaling factor, D is the symbol value, X is an original LLR magnitude assigned to the symbol value, “*” is a multiplication sign, and the scaling factor Q and the original LLR magnitude X are selected to satisfy a hardware constraint (See also [0065, 0080, 0081,0085]).
Another prior of record Bisplinghoff et al. (US 2015/0363247 A1) teaches, [0015] … for each LDPC code there is a nonlinear conversion function (characteristic for the degree distribution of the code), which translates the number (or rate) of bit errors into a number (or rate) of unsatisfied parity checks (or vice versa). The conversion function is linear for low pre-FEC BER but becomes (strongly) nonlinear when approaching or exceeding the correction threshold (See also [0027-0031, [0060-0070]).
However, as per claim 1, the prior art of record Chang et al., or Bisplinghoff et al. does not teach or suggest either alone or in combination: “for a first variable node: determining a conversion factor indicating a quality of the check node data of the plurality of check nodes with reference to variable node data of the first variable node; identifying a first set of check nodes for which the variable node data of the first variable node is applied to determine the check node data of each of the first set of check nodes; determining a scaling factor based on at least the conversion factor; and determining variable node data of the first variable node by at least applying the scaling factor to the check node data of the first set of check nodes.” Consequently, claim 1 is allowable over the cited prior arts. The Independent claims 19 and 20 include allowable limitations similar to claim 1, and therefore, are allowable for similar reasons.
The above features together with other limitations of the independent claims are novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. The dependent claims 2-18 are being definite, enabled by the specification, and further limiting to the independent claims, are also allowable.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
When amending the claims, Applicants are respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ENAMUL MD KABIR whose telephone number is (571)270-7256. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00-6:30 pm.
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, Albert Decady can be reached on 571-272-3819. 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 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.
/ENAMUL M KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2112
/ALBERT DECADY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights