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.
Specification
The specification is objected to because:
The Cross-Reference to Related Applications section in paragraph [0001] of the specification does not provide the status of U.S. application serial no. 18/438,919 (i.e., now U.S. Patent No. 12,348,244).
Drawings
The formal drawings are accepted.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of. U.S. Patent No. 12,348,244.
For example, claim 1 of the present application teaches “A method comprising: receiving a codeword from a memory device, the codeword including a plurality of bits; flipping one or more of the plurality of bits in the codeword in each of a plurality of iterations of bit flipping decoding using a first set of one or more bit flipping rules, wherein each of the plurality of iterations includes a determination of a syndrome weight; detecting a syndrome weight increase from a previous iteration to a current iteration; updating a data structure in response to detecting the syndrome weight increase; determining, based the data structure, to use one or more different bit flipping rules for a subsequent iteration of bit flipping decoding; and in response to determining to use one or more different bit flipping rules, flipping one or more of the plurality of bits in the codeword in the subsequent iteration using a second set of one or more bit flipping rules, wherein the second set of bit flipping rules differs from the first set of bit flipping rules”. Wherein claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,348,244 teaches “A method comprising: receiving a codeword from a memory device, the codeword including a plurality of bits; flipping one or more of the plurality of bits in the codeword in each of a plurality of iterations of bit flipping decoding using a first set of one or more bit flipping rules, wherein each of the plurality of iterations includes a determination of a syndrome weight; determining a count of iterations in which the syndrome weight increased satisfies a syndrome weight increase count threshold; and in response to determining the count of iterations satisfies the syndrome weight increase count threshold, flipping one or more of the plurality of bits in the codeword a subsequent iteration of bit flipping decoding using a second set of one or more bit flipping rules, wherein the second set of bit flipping rules differs from the first set of bit flipping rules”.
The examiner would like to emphasize that although the two inventions are not “exactly” the same, they are obvious variations of each other and not patentably distinct because one is just an embodiment of the other and also the process remains the same.
“A latter patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the latter claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Dependent claims 2-7 are deemed obvious over the dependent claims 2-7 the '244 patent for the same rationales discussed above.
For example, claim 8 of the present application teaches “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to: receive a codeword from a memory device, the codeword including a plurality of bits; flip one or more of the plurality of bits in the codeword in each of a plurality of iterations of bit flipping decoding using a first set of one or more bit flipping rules, wherein each of the plurality of iterations includes a determination of a syndrome weight; detect a syndrome weight increase from a previous iteration to a current iteration; update a data structure in response to detecting the syndrome weight increase; determine, based the data structure, to use one or more different bit flipping rules for a subsequent iteration of bit flipping decoding; and in response to determining to use one or more different bit flipping rules, flip one or more of the plurality of bits in the codeword in the subsequent iteration using a second set of one or more bit flipping rules, wherein the second set of bit flipping rules differs from the first set of bit flipping rules. Wherein claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,348,244 teaches “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to: receive a codeword from a memory device, the codeword including a plurality of bits; flip one or more of the plurality of bits in the codeword in each of a plurality of iterations of bit flipping decoding using a first set of one or more bit flipping rules, wherein each of the plurality of iterations includes a determination of a syndrome weight; determine a count of iterations in which the syndrome weight increased satisfies a syndrome weight increase count threshold; and in response to determining the count of iterations satisfies the syndrome weight increase count threshold, flip one or more of the plurality of bits in the codeword a subsequent iteration of bit flipping decoding using a second set of one or more bit flipping rules, wherein the second set of bit flipping rules differs from the first set of bit flipping rules”.
The examiner would like to emphasize that although the two inventions are not “exactly” the same, they are obvious variations of each other and not patentably distinct because one is just an embodiment of the other and also the process remains the same.
“A latter patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the latter claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Dependent claims 9-14 are deemed obvious over the dependent claims 9-14 the '244 patent for the same rationales discussed above.
For example, claim 15 of the present application teaches “A system comprising: a memory device; and a processing device, operatively coupled with the memory device, to receive a codeword from a memory device, the codeword including a plurality of bits; flip one or more of the plurality of bits in the codeword in each of a plurality of iterations of bit flipping decoding using a first set of one or more bit flipping rules, wherein each of the plurality of iterations includes a determination of a syndrome weight; detect a syndrome weight increase from a previous iteration to a current iteration; update a data structure in response to detecting the syndrome weight increase; determine, based the data structure, to use one or more different bit flipping rules for a subsequent iteration of bit flipping decoding; and in response to determining to use one or more different bit flipping rules, flip one or more of the plurality of bits in the codeword in the subsequent iteration using a second set of one or more bit flipping rules, wherein the second set of bit flipping rules differs from the first set of bit flipping rules, and wherein the first set of bit flipping rules allows a bit to be flipped in back-to-back iterations and the second set of bit flipping rules prevents a bit from being flipped in back-to-back iterations. Wherein claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,348,244 teaches “A system comprising: a memory device; and a processing device, operatively coupled with the memory device, to: receive a codeword from a memory device, the codeword including a plurality of bits; flip one or more of the plurality of bits in the codeword in each of a plurality of iterations of bit flipping decoding using a first set of one or more bit flipping rules, wherein each of the plurality of iterations includes a determination of a syndrome weight; determine a count of iterations in which the syndrome weight increased satisfies a syndrome weight increase count threshold, wherein determining the count of iterations in which the syndrome weight increased is limited to a window of iterations that is less than all iterations of the plurality of iterations; and in response to determining the count of iterations satisfies the syndrome weight increase count threshold, flip one or more of the plurality of bits in the codeword a subsequent iteration of bit flipping decoding using a second set of one or more bit flipping rules, wherein the second set of bit flipping rules differs from the first set of bit flipping rules”.
The examiner would like to emphasize that although the two inventions are not “exactly” the same, they are obvious variations of each other and not patentably distinct because one is just an embodiment of the other and also the process remains the same.
“A latter patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the latter claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Dependent claims 16-20 are deemed obvious over the dependent claims 16-20 the '244 patent for the same rationales discussed above.
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 shall 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia et al.” herein Bhatia” (US-20210175900-A1), in view of Kuo (US US-20210175900-A1).
Claim 1: Bhatia substantially teaches a method, a system, and storage medium comprising receiving a codeword from a memory device, the codeword including a plurality of bits; (Bhatia, [0023] a detector 130 receives data from the storage system 120. The data received may include some noise or errors. The detector 130 performs detection on the received data and outputs decision and/or reliability information. For example, a soft output detector outputs reliability information and a decision for each detected bit. a soft output detector outputs a decision and reliability information associated with the decision... a soft output detector outputs a log- likelihood ratio (LLR) where the sign indicates the decision (e.g., a positive value corresponds to a "1" decision and a negative value corresponds to a “0” decision) and the magnitude indicates how sure or certain the detector is in that decision (e.g., a large magnitude indicates a high reliability or certainty)) (Bhatia, Fig. 4 Receive a codeword 402) flipping one or more of the plurality of bits in the codeword in each of a plurality of iterations of bit flipping decoding using a first set of one or more bit flipping rules, wherein each of the plurality of iterations includes a determination of a syndrome weight; (Bhatia [0048] At operation 508, the decoding system increments a counter of a decoding iteration. For example, the bit-flipping decoding of the G-LDPC codeword is iterative up to a maximum number of iterations. Hence, the decoding system starts at the first iteration and repeats the decoding until successful or until the maximum number is reached...) (Bhatia, Fig. 4 Perform a bit-flipping operation n the bit in the component codeword based on an error location from syndrome table 408) detecting a syndrome weight increase from a previous iteration to a current iteration; updating a data structure in response to detecting the syndrome weight increase; (Bhatia, [0050] At operation 512, the decoding system updates a current reliability of the bit based on error locations in a second syndrome table (e.g., an L-table) and on the bit and corresponding decision bit) (Bhatia [0053] At operation 514, the decoding system compares the current reliability value to a threshold. If the comparison indicates that the current reliability is larger than the threshold, operation 516 is performed to flip the bit) determining, based the data structure, to use one or more different bit flipping rules for a subsequent iteration of bit flipping decoding; Bhatia [0058] At operation 520, the decoding system determines whether all the current syndromes for the component codewords protecting the bit are zero at the current decoding iteration. If so, operation 520 is performed. Otherwise, the decoding of the bit was not successful at the current iteration and the decoding system loops back to operation 510 to select a next bit for the decoding of the G-LDPC codeword) determining a count of the plurality of iterations satisfies an iteration count threshold; and (Bhatia [0048] At operation 508, the decoding system increments a counter of a decoding iteration. For example, the bit-flipping decoding of the G-LDPC codeword is iterative up to a maximum number of iterations. Hence, the decoding system starts at the first iteration and repeats the decoding until successful or until the maximum number is reached. responsive to the determining the iteration count threshold is satisfied (Bhatia, [0060] Of course, for bits that were not successfully decoded in the current decoding iteration, the decoding system loops back to operation 508 by incrementing the counter. If the counter does not exceed the maximum number of decoding iterations, operations 510-522 are then repeated to decode the bits that were not successfully decoded in the previous decoding iteration. If the counter exceeds the threshold, the decoding of these bits is declared to have failed) (Bhatia, [0060] Of course, for bits that were not successfully decoded in the current decoding iteration, the decoding system loops back to operation 508 by incrementing the counter. If the counter does not exceed the maximum number of decoding iterations, operations 510-522 are then repeated to decode the bits that were not successfully decoded in the previous decoding iteration. If the counter exceeds the threshold, the decoding of these bits is declared to have failed) (Bhatia, Fig. 5, Current Syndromes = 0?) (Bhatia, Fig. 5, Current Syndromes = 0? == No and If the counter does not exceed the maximum number of decoding iterations,) and in response to determining to use one or more different bit flipping rules, flipping one or more of the plurality of bits in the codeword in the subsequent iteration using a second set of one or more bit flipping rules, wherein the second set of bit flipping rules differs from the first set of bit flipping rules (Bhatia, when iteration count is less than maximum number and syndromes is not equal to zero then the processes is repeat steps 510-518 so when performing in a second iteration the second flipping criterion is different due to updating reliability bit a t step 512 in 2ⁿᵈ iteration) (Bhatia, [0050] At operation 512, the decoding system updates a current reliability of the bit based on error locations in a second syndrome table (e.g., an L-table) and on the bit and corresponding decision bit) (Bhatia [0053] At operation 514, the decoding system compares the current reliability value to a threshold. If the comparison indicates that the current reliability is larger than the threshold, operation 516 is performed to flip the bit).
Bhatia does not explicitly disclose: the second set of bit flipping rules differs from the first set of bit flipping rules
However, Kuo in an analogous art, teaches that the second set of bit flipping rules differs from the first set of bit flipping rules (Kuo, [0063], flipping-determination unit 6131 may include a plurality of flipping-strategy lookup tables. Different flipping-strategy lookup tables correspond to different decoding targets, when decoder 215 is set to one of the decoding targets, the flipping-determination unit 6131 may select one of the flipping-strategy lookup tables corresponding to the decoding target). Kuo [0067] The flipping unit 713 may include a flipping-determination unit 6131 and a bit-flipping circuit 7132. The flipping-determination unit 7131 may include flipping-strategy lookup tables 701 and 702 that have different flipping strategies,,,).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Kuo's method that the second set of bit flipping rules differs from the first set of bit flipping rules. (Kuo, [0063] In some embodiments, the flipping-determination unit 6131 may include a plurality of flipping-strategy lookup tables. Different flipping- strategy lookup tables correspond to different decoding targets, and can be optimized for design, such as improving the throughput, increasing the correction rate, or reducing power consumption, etc. When decoder 215 is set to one of the decoding targets, the flipping-determination unit 6131 may select one of the flipping-strategy lookup tables corresponding to the decoding target).
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 differing the second set of bit flipping rules from the first set of bit flipping rules would have enhanced the accuracy of the decoding process and the overall system performance.
Claim 2, Bhatia substantially teaches determining to use one or more different bit flipping rules comprising: determining a count of iterations in which the syndrome weight increased satisfies a syndrome weight increase count threshold (Bhatia, [0060] Of course, for bits that were not successfully decoded in the current decoding iteration, the decoding system loops back to operation 508 by incrementing the counter. If the counter does not exceed the maximum number of decoding iterations, operations 510-522 are then repeated to decode the bits that were not successfully decoded in the previous decoding iteration. If the counter exceeds the threshold, the decoding of these bits is declared to have failed) (Bhatia, [0060] Of course, for bits that were not successfully decoded in the current decoding iteration, the decoding system loops back to operation 508 by incrementing the counter. If the counter does not exceed the maximum number of decoding iterations, operations 510-522 are then repeated to decode the bits that were not successfully decoded in the previous decoding iteration. If the counter exceeds the threshold, the decoding of these bits is declared to have failed) (Bhatia, Fig. 5, Current Syndromes = 0?) (Bhatia, Fig. 5, Current Syndromes = 0? == No and If the counter does not exceed the maximum number of decoding iterations).
Claim 3, Bhatia substantially teaches wherein the data structure is a first-in, first-out (FIFO) list of indications of syndrome weight slope between subsequent iterations (Bhatia, [0060] Of course, for bits that were not successfully decoded in the current decoding iteration, the decoding system loops back to operation 508 by incrementing the counter. If the counter does not exceed the maximum number of decoding iterations, operations 510-522 are then repeated to decode the bits that were not successfully decoded in the previous decoding iteration. If the counter exceeds the threshold, the decoding of these bits is declared to have failed) (Bhatia, [0060] Of course, for bits that were not successfully decoded in the current decoding iteration, the decoding system loops back to operation 508 by incrementing the counter. If the counter does not exceed the maximum number of decoding iterations, operations 510-522 are then repeated to decode the bits that were not successfully decoded in the previous decoding iteration. If the counter exceeds the threshold, the decoding of these bits is declared to have failed) (Bhatia, Fig. 5, Current Syndromes = 0?) (Bhatia, Fig. 5, Current Syndromes = 0? == No and If the counter does not exceed the maximum number of decoding iterations).
Claim 4, Bhatia substantially teaches wherein determining the count of iterations in which the syndrome weight increased is limited to a window of iterations defined by a length of the FIFO list (Bhatia, [0060] Of course, for bits that were not successfully decoded in the current decoding iteration, the decoding system loops back to operation 508 by incrementing the counter. If the counter does not exceed the maximum number of decoding iterations, operations 510-522 are then repeated to decode the bits that were not successfully decoded in the previous decoding iteration. If the counter exceeds the threshold, the decoding of these bits is declared to have failed) (Bhatia, [0060] Of course, for bits that were not successfully decoded in the current decoding iteration, the decoding system loops back to operation 508 by incrementing the counter. If the counter does not exceed the maximum number of decoding iterations, operations 510-522 are then repeated to decode the bits that were not successfully decoded in the previous decoding iteration. If the counter exceeds the threshold, the decoding of these bits is declared to have failed) (Bhatia, Fig. 5, Current Syndromes = 0?) (Bhatia, Fig. 5, Current Syndromes = 0? == No and If the counter does not exceed the maximum number of decoding iterations).
Claim 5, Bhatia substantially teaches determining the syndrome weight of a current iteration represents a decrease in syndrome weight from a previous iteration; and adding an indication of the decrease in syndrome weight to a syndrome slope memory ) (Bhatia, [0060] Of course, for bits that were not successfully decoded in the current decoding iteration, the decoding system loops back to operation 508 by incrementing the counter. If the counter does not exceed the maximum number of decoding iterations, operations 510-522 are then repeated to decode the bits that were not successfully decoded in the previous decoding iteration. If the counter exceeds the threshold, the decoding of these bits is declared to have failed) (Bhatia, Fig. 5, Current Syndromes = 0?) (Bhatia, Fig. 5, Current Syndromes = 0? == No and If the counter does not exceed the maximum number of decoding iterations).
Clam 6, Bhatia substantially teaches wherein the second set of bit flipping rules differs from the first set of bit flipping rules in one or more of: use of channel information; an order the bit flipping decoder evaluates the plurality of bits of the codeword for flipping; and bit flipping threshold, wherein the bit flipping threshold is compared against an energy function of each of the plurality of bits of the codeword in determining which bits to flip (Bhatia, [0060] Of course, for bits that were not successfully decoded in the current decoding iteration, the decoding system loops back to operation 508 by incrementing the counter. If the counter does not exceed the maximum number of decoding iterations, operations 510-522 are then repeated to decode the bits that were not successfully decoded in the previous decoding iteration. If the counter exceeds the threshold, the decoding of these bits is declared to have failed) (Bhatia, [0060] Of course, for bits that were not successfully decoded in the current decoding iteration, the decoding system loops back to operation 508 by incrementing the counter. If the counter does not exceed the maximum number of decoding iterations, operations 510-522 are then repeated to decode the bits that were not successfully decoded in the previous decoding iteration. If the counter exceeds the threshold, the decoding of these bits is declared to have failed) (Bhatia, Fig. 5, Current Syndromes = 0?) (Bhatia, Fig. 5, Current Syndromes = 0? == No and If the counter does not exceed the maximum number of decoding iterations).
Claim 7, Bhatia substantially teaches wherein the first set of bit flipping rules allows a bit to be flipped in back-to-back iterations and the second set of bit flipping rules prevents a bit from being flipped in back-to-back iterations (Bhatia, Fig. 5, Current Syndromes = 0?) (Bhatia, Fig. 5, Current Syndromes = 0? == No and If the counter does not exceed the maximum number of decoding iterations,) and in response to determining to use one or more different bit flipping rules, flipping one or more of the plurality of bits in the codeword in the subsequent iteration using a second set of one or more bit flipping rules, wherein the second set of bit flipping rules differs from the first set of bit flipping rules (Bhatia, when iteration count is less than maximum number and syndromes is not equal to zero then the processes is repeat steps 510-518 so when performing in a second iteration the second flipping criterion is different due to updating reliability bit a t step 512 in 2ⁿᵈ iteration.
Claim 8, and 15, these claims are directed to a system and computer readable medium and are rejected for the same reasons as in claim 1.
Claims 9, and 16, these claims are directed to a system and computer readable medium and are rejected for the same reasons as in claim 2.
Claims 10, and 17, these claims are directed to a system and computer readable medium and are rejected for the same reasons as in claim 3.
Claims 11, and 18, these claims are directed to a system and computer readable medium and are rejected for the same reasons as in claim 4.
Claims 12, and 19, these claims are directed to a system and computer readable medium and are rejected for the same reasons as in claim 5.
Claims 13 and 20, these claims are directed to a system and computer readable medium and are rejected for the same reasons as in claim 6.
Claim 14, the claim is directed to a system and readable computer medium 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.
(Xiong et al. (U.S. PN: 11,146,290) describes determining one or more flipping reliabilities of the plurality of bit nodes may include determining whether the syndrome weight is greater than a syndrome weight threshold; and in response to determining that the syndrome weight is greater than the syndrome weight threshold, designating a preset flipping reliability as the one or more flipping reliabilities of the plurality of bit nodes.
(Nguyen et al. (U.S. PN: 10,153,786) teaches a decoding method, there may be a plurality of further rules of varying reliability and a plurality of thresholds, where during any selected iteration, the comparison is performed based on a threshold related to the rule according to which decoding is performed during that selected iteration, and once the comparison results in decoding according to one of the further rules having a certain reliability, the repeating continues but decoding during any iteration is not performed according to the first rule or any of the further rules that have already been used. For any rule, the threshold related to that rule may be determined based on performance statistics for that rule, which may be syndrome weights or bit flips.
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, 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 (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
