24 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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted have been considered. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.9 /. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Drawings
The formal drawings are accepted.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (Does this claim fall within at least one statutory category?): Yes, the claim
recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1: ((a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an
abstract idea: and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one
of the groups of abstract ideas (mental process or/and mathematical concept).
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method of decoding error correcting code (ECC), the method comprising: obtaining a received word generated based on a transmitted code word; obtaining a reliability vector of the received word and a syndrome vector of the received word (“Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas of data gathering (observations), evaluations, and judgements); updating at least one of the reliability vector of the received word and the syndrome vector of the received word at least once based on a plurality of cross-attentions based on the reliability vector and the syndrome vector; and outputting an estimate of the transmitted code word based on a result of the update (mathematical relationship).
Step 2A, Prong 2 (1. Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in
the claim beyond the judicial exception; and 2. Evaluating those additional elements
individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the
exception into a practical application): There is no additional element.
Step 2B: (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more
than the judicial exception? No): There is no additional element. The claim does not recite any hardware tied to the method.
As per claim 2, the claim falls into [Mental Processes, grouping of abstract ideas of data gathering (observations), evaluations and judgements and mathematical concept].
As per claim 3, the claim is into [Mental Processes, grouping of abstract ideas of data gathering (observations), evaluations and judgements and mathematical concept].
As per claim 4, the claim is into [Mental Processes, grouping of abstract ideas of data gathering (observations), evaluations and judgements and mathematical concepts].
As per claim 5, the claim is into [Mental Processes, grouping of abstract ideas of data gathering (observations), evaluations and judgements and mathematical concept].
As per claim 6, the claim is into [Mental Processes, grouping of abstract ideas of data gathering (observations), evaluations and judgements and mathematical concept].
As per claim 7, the claim is into [Mental Processes, grouping of abstract ideas of data gathering (observations), evaluations and judgements and mathematical concept].
As per claim 8, the claim is into [Mental Processes, grouping of abstract ideas of data gathering (observations), evaluations and judgements and mathematical concept].
As per claim 9, the claim is into [Mental Processes, grouping of abstract ideas of data gathering (observations), evaluations and judgements and mathematical concept].
As per claim 10, the claim is into [Mental Processes, grouping of abstract ideas of data gathering (observations), evaluations and judgements and mathematical concept].
As per claim 11, the claim is into [Mental Processes, grouping of abstract ideas of data gathering (observations), evaluations and judgements and mathematical concept].
As per claims 12, 13, and 19 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of claim 1, and as such is similar rejected. Further, the claims recite additional elements of "a processor". “a computer readable medium" and “a decoder”. The components recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional elements of "a processor", "a computer readable medium", and “a decoder” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As per claims 14 and 20, recites limitations analogous in scope to those of claim 2 and as such is similarly rejected.
As per claim 15, recites limitations analogous in scope to those of claim 3, and as such is similarly rejected.
As per claim 16, recites limitations analogous in scope to those of independent claim 4, and as such is similarly rejected.
As per claim 17, recites limitations analogous in scope to those of independent claim 5, and as such is similarly rejected.
As per claim 18, recites limitations analogous in scope to those of independent claim 7, and as such is similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, 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 should not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Steiner et al. (U.S. PN: 12,176,924) in view of Shu et al. “herein Shu” (US-20240169746).
As per claim 1:
Steiner substantially teaches or discloses a method of decoding error correcting code (ECC), the method comprising: obtaining a received word generated based on a transmitted code word (see col. 11, lines 59-67 and col. 17, lines 20-36) obtaining a reliability vector of the received word and a syndrome vector of the received word (see col. 48-67 and col. 15, lines 14, lines 45) updating at least one of the reliability vector of the received word and the syndrome vector of the received word (see col. 16, lines 16-67 to col. 17, lines 1-19 and col. 21, lines 6-67 to col. 22, 1-67) at least once based on a plurality of cross-attentions based on the reliability vector and the syndrome vector; and outputting an estimate of the transmitted code word based on a result of the update (see col. 18, lines 38-67 to col. 19, lines 1-3). Steiner Further states the indication of updating reliability and syndrome (see col. 20, lines 20-44) “the LLR of a fixed location per iteration may be updated to reflect a modified input reliability to the corrected location (block 716). This modification ensures that the decoder will correct the following bits with greater reliability. For instance, if location j is fixed, it can be updated by uLLR=c.Math.log (0. 5+P.sub.e (j)), where u LLR is a positive LLR update value that is used to replace the input reliability of the bit at location j, as well as its corresponding updated syndrome. In some embodiments, multiple error locations are chosen instead of just the most confident fix. This approach involves selecting the m error locations that have the highest probability error and applying a syndrome update computation for these locations. Optionally, the input reliability for those bits can be updated accordingly, and then the process proceeds to the next iteration. Overall, these embodiments of FIGS. 7-8 allow for an iterative DNN solver process that can converge to an error vector solution while performing the most confident error fixes at each iteration, updating the syndrome vector and optionally updating the input reliabilities to correct errors with greater reliability”.
Steiner did not explicitly teach the specific use of cross-attention to update syndrome and reliability values of a decoder
However, Shu teaches the specific use of cross-attention to update syndrome and reliability of a decoder (see paragraphs [0026] - [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Steiner with the teachings of Shu by including specific use of cross-attention to update syndrome and reliability of a decoder.
This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that including specific use of cross-attention to update reliability and syndrome of the received word provides an active reliability mechanism for ECC decoder.
As per claim 2, Steiner substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein at least one of the pluralities of cross-attentions comprises a masked cross-attention, and the masked cross-attention updates at least one of the reliability vectors and the syndrome vector using a mask matrix (see col. 15, lines 12-45).
As per claim 3, Steiner substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein the mask matrix comprises a parity check matrix indicating a relationship between an element of the received word and a parity check constraint, and the parity check matrix and a transpose matrix of the parity check matrix are used for a cross-reference update between the reliability vector and the syndrome vector (see col. 17, lines 20-61).
As per claim 4, Steiner substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein the cross-attention comprises a first cross- attention configured to update the reliability vector of the received word and a second cross- attention configured to update the syndrome vector of the received word (see col. 16, lines 16-48 and col. 20, lines 20-44).
As per claim 5, Steiner substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein the updating at least once comprises: updating the reliability vector of the received word by projecting the reliability vector of the received word to a query and projecting the syndrome vector of the received word to a key and a value (see col.16, lines 16-48 and col. 20, lines 20-44).
As per claim 6, Steiner substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein the updating of the reliability vector of the received word comprises: using a first mask matrix based on the parity check matrix (see col. 17, lines 20-61).
As per claim 7, Steiner substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein the updating at least once comprises: updating the syndrome vector of the received word by projecting the syndrome vector of the received word to a query and projecting the reliability vector of the received word to a key and a value (see col.16, lines 16-48 and col. 20, lines 20-44).
As per claim 8, Steiner substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein the updating of the syndrome vector of the received word comprises: using a second mask matrix based on the parity check matrix (see col. 17, lines 20-61).
As per claim 9, Steiner substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection,, wherein the updating at least once comprises: when the update of the reliability vector of the received word in the first cross-attention is performed prior to the update of the syndrome vector of the received word in the second cross-attention, projecting an updated reliability vector of the received word in the first cross- attention to a key and a value and using the projected key and value as an input of the second cross-attention (see col.16, lines 16-48 and col. 20, lines 20-44).
As per claim 10, Steiner substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein the updating at least once comprises: when the update of the syndrome vector of the received word in the second cross- attention is performed prior to the update of the reliability vector of the received word in the first cross-attention, projecting an updated syndrome vector of the received word in the second cross-attention to a key and a value and using the projected key and value as an input of the first cross-attention (see col.16, lines 16-48 and col. 20, lines 20-44).
As per claim 11, Steiner substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, wherein the received word is converted by applying binary phase shift keying (BPSK) and additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) to the transmitted code word (see col. 15, lines 1-11).
As per claim 12, Steiner substantially teaches, in view of the above rejection, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 1 (see col. 7, lines 30-44).
Claim 13 and 19 these claims are directed to a method and a decoder and electronic device and are rejected for the same reasons as in claim 1.
Claim 14 and 20 these claims are directed to a method and a decoder and electronic device and are rejected for the same reasons as in claim 2.
Claim 15, this claim is directed to a method and electronic device and is rejected for the same reasons as in claim 3.
Claim 16, this claim is directed to a method and electronic device and is rejected for the same reasons as in claim 4.
Claim 17, this claim is directed to a method and electronic device and is rejected for the same reasons as in claim 5.
Claim 18, this claim is directed to a method and electronic device and is rejected for the same reasons as in claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner also requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d) (1) requires such support in the Specification for any new language added to the claims and 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) requires support be found in the Drawings for all claimed features.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Examiner has cited columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested by the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 M-F 8am-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicants are 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 (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
Prosecution Insights