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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/07/2025 and 07/24/2026 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,328,129. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Instant Application
US 12,328,129
As per claim 1:
As per claim 8:
As per claim 15:
determining a plurality of energy function values for a codeword during a bit flipping decoding of the codeword;
determining a least reliable of the energy function values for the codeword;
determining the least reliable energy function value fails to satisfy a bit flipping criterion of a current iteration of the bit flipping decoding; and
bypassing at least a portion of the current iteration of the bit flipping decoding of the codeword
by bypassing a comparison of a remainder of the plurality of energy function values with a bit flipping criterion of the current iteration
responsive to determining the least reliable energy function value fails to satisfy the bit flipping criterion.
As per claim 1:
determining a plurality of energy function values for the codeword;
determining a least reliable of the energy function values for the codeword;
determining a least reliable of the energy function values for the codeword;
bypassing an iteration of a bit flipping decoding of the codeword by
bypassing a comparison of the plurality of energy function values with a bit flipping criterion of a current iteration of the bit flipping …
responsive to determining the least reliable energy function value fails to satisfy the bit flipping criterion …
As per claim 2:
As per claim 9:
As per claim 16:
wherein the bit flipping criterion of the current iteration differs from a bit flipping criterion of a subsequent iteration and the least reliable energy function value satisfies the bit flipping criterion of the subsequent iteration.
As per claim 2:
wherein the bit flipping criterion of the current iteration differs from a bit flipping criterion of a subsequent iteration and the least reliable energy function value satisfies the bit flipping criterion of the subsequent iteration.
As per claim 3:
As per claim 10:
As per claim 17:
flipping a bit of the codeword in response to determining the energy function value for the bit satisfies the bit flipping criterion of the subsequent iteration.
As per claim 3:
flipping a bit of the codeword in response to determining the energy function value for the bit satisfies the bit flipping criterion of the subsequent iteration.
As per claim 4:
As per claim 11:
As per claim 18:
determining the least reliable energy function value also fails to satisfy a bit flipping criterion of a subsequent iteration of a bit flipping decoding of the codeword; and
bypassing at least a portion of the subsequent
iteration in response to determining the least reliable energy function value fails to satisfy the bit flipping criterion of the subsequent iteration.
As per claim 4:
determining the least reliable energy function value also fails to satisfy a bit flipping criterion of a subsequent iteration of a bit flipping decoding of the codeword; and
incrementing an iteration count again
in response to determining the least reliable energy function value fails to satisfy the bit flipping criterion of the subsequent iteration.
As per claim 5:
As per claim 12:
wherein the least reliable energy function value was determined during a previous iteration of the bit flipping decoding of the codeword.
As per claim 5:
wherein the least reliable energy function value was determined during a previous iteration of the bit flipping decoding of the codeword.
As per claim 6:
As per claim 13:
As per claim 19:
wherein the determining the energy function values for the codeword includes:
retrieving an energy function value for a bit of the codeword from a look up table using a number of unsatisfied parity checks and channel information indicating whether a current state of the bit is in a same state of the bit as read from a memory device.
As per claim 5:
wherein the determining the energy function values for the codeword includes:
retrieving an energy function value for a bit of the codeword from a look up table using a number of unsatisfied parity checks and channel information indicating whether a current state of the bit is the same as a state of the bit as read from the memory device
As per claim 7:
As per claim 14:
As per claim 20:
wherein the determining the energy function values for the codeword further includes using soft information associated with the bit of the codeword, wherein the soft bit indicates whether the bit of the codeword is strong or weak.
As per claim 7:
wherein the determining the energy function values for the codeword further includes using soft information associated with the bit of the codeword, wherein the soft bit indicates whether the bit of the codeword is strong or weak.
One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize independent claims of current application is an obvious variation of the claimed subject matter of independent claims of patent US 12,328,129 because both recite a method of determining a plurality of energy function values for a codeword …determining a least reliable of the energy function values for the codeword…determining the least reliable energy function value fails ..; and bypassing at least a portion of the current iteration of the bit flipping decoding of the codeword …by bypassing a comparison of a remainder of the plurality of energy function values with a bit flipping criterion of the current iteration responsive to determining the least reliable energy function value fails to satisfy the bit flipping criterion”
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the primary difference of the current application is that it does not require the limitations such as “receiving a codeword stored in a memory device” and “incrementing an iteration count…”
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
In analyzing under step 1, is the claim to a process, machine manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
In analyzing under step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes.
The claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 recite(s) the abstract limitations such as “determining a plurality of energy function values for a codeword …; determining a least reliable of the energy function values for the codeword; determining the least reliable energy function value fails to satisfy a bit flipping criterion of a current iteration of the bit flipping decoding; and bypassing at least a portion of the current iteration of the bit flipping decoding of the codeword by bypassing a comparison of a remainder of the plurality of energy function values with a bit flipping criterion of the current iteration responsive to determining the least reliable energy function value fails to satisfy the bit flipping criterion” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer processor such as “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to” (see claim 8) and “a system comprising: a memory device; and a processing device, operatively coupled with the memory device, to” (see claim 15)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mental and/or mathematical processes but for the recitation of generic computer components and software module, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and/or “Mathematical Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The generic process can (1) determine a plurality of energy function values, (2) determine the least reliable energy function values, (3) determine/compare the least reliable energy function value that fails to satisfy a bit flipping criterion based on mathematical comparison and (4) based on comparison, then determine whether to by passing the flipping/toggling the codeword.
Other claims recite abstract limitation for determining when to flip or toggle for codeword.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract limitation.
In analyzing under step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite a generic processor such as “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to” (see claim 8) and “a system comprising: a memory device; and a processing device, operatively coupled with the memory device, to” (see claim 15) for determining an comparing.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a generic processor and software module which are high level of determining and comparing
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In analyzing under step 2B, does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO
Claims 1-20 do not recite any additional elements except a generic processor for determining and comparing .
Accordingly, the additional generic elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a generic processor and software module which are high level of generality determining and comparing.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
As per claim 1:
As per claim 8:
As per claim 15:
A method comprising:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to:
A system comprising: a memory device; and a processing device, operatively coupled with the memory device, to:
determining a plurality of energy function values for a codeword during a bit flipping decoding of the codeword;
determining a least reliable of the energy function values for the codeword;
determining the least reliable energy function value fails to satisfy a bit flipping criterion of a current iteration of the bit flipping decoding; and
bypassing at least a portion of the current iteration of the bit flipping decoding of the codeword by bypassing a comparison of a remainder of the plurality of energy function values with a bit flipping criterion of the current iteration responsive to determining the least reliable energy function value fails to satisfy the bit flipping criterion.
As per claim 2:
As per claim 9:
As per claim 16:
wherein the bit flipping criterion of the current iteration differs from a bit flipping criterion of a subsequent iteration and the least reliable energy function value satisfies the bit flipping criterion of the subsequent iteration.
As per claim 3:
As per claim 10:
As per claim 17:
flipping a bit of the codeword in response to determining the energy function value for the bit satisfies the bit flipping criterion of the subsequent iteration.
As per claim 4:
As per claim 11:
As per claim 18:
determining the least reliable energy function value also fails to satisfy a bit flipping criterion of a subsequent iteration of a bit flipping decoding of the codeword; and
bypassing at least a portion of the subsequent iteration in response to determining the least reliable energy function value fails to satisfy the bit flipping criterion of the subsequent iteration.
As per claim 5:
As per claim 12:
wherein the least reliable energy function value was determined during a previous iteration of the bit flipping decoding of the codeword.
As per claim 6:
As per claim 13:
As per claim 19:
wherein the determining the energy function values for the codeword includes:
retrieving an energy function value for a bit of the codeword from a look up table using a number of unsatisfied parity checks and channel information indicating whether a current state of the bit is in a same state of the bit as read from a memory device.
As per claim 7:
As per claim 14:
As per claim 20:
wherein the determining the energy function values for the codeword further includes using soft information associated with the bit of the codeword, wherein the soft bit indicates whether the bit of the codeword is strong or weak.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed if Applicant can overcome the rejection above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Gad et al. (US 2022/0,294,473) in [0053] discloses a method of processing logic flips any bits in the check equation results that are in the unsatisfied state (or an energy level) that satisfies an energy threshold condition,… the threshold level of energy is equal to the maximum number of parity check equation results that are in the unsatisfied state for any one bit of the sense word, as determined at operation 425. … … determines whether the updated syndrome satisfies the codeword criterion
Lu et al. (US 2021/0,281,278) in Paragraph [0005] describes " decision to skip performing the bit flipping procedure based on (i) the first comparison indicating that the degree is smaller than the degree threshold, (ii) the second comparison indicating that the checksum is greater than the checksum threshold, and (iii) the third comparison indicating that the bit flipping threshold "T" is equal to any of the one or more predefined values."
Ish-Shalom et al. over (US 2015/0,180,511) in paragraph 0040 discloses “a method begins with VNP 104 checking whether the currently scanned v-node is marked for skipping, in a v-node mark checking step 200. The v-node may have been marked for skipping in the previous iteration (the N-1.sup.th) …”
However, the prior arts of record do not teach or suggest "bypassing at least a portion of the current iteration of the bit flipping decoding of the codeword by bypassing a comparison of a remainder of the plurality of energy function values with a bit flipping criterion of the current iteration responsive to determining the least reliable energy function value fails to satisfy the bit flipping criterion" as recited in amended claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN DANG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM - 3:30 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, 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.
/Thien Nguyen/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111
Prosecution Insights