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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 18th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Applicant amended independent claims 1, 11, and 16 to teach inputting a first and second set of codewords into an encoder and generating a third set of codewords. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The prior art of record used in the previous Office action mailed December 19th, 2025, specifically Baek et al. (US 10,459,794), hereinafter Baek, teaches processing encoded data through multiple encoding stages, where the codewords generated by an ECC encoder are input to subsequent encoding processing (data separating/merging processing) to generate a new encoded output. Accordingly, the amended limitations are taught or suggested by the references, as described below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 18th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Baek fails to teach inputting a first and second set of codewords into an encoder, and only teaches inputting original data into an ECC encoder and adding metadata after encoding. This argument is not persuasive.
Baek teaches a multi-stage encoding process where an ECC encoder generates codewords from data, and those codewords are then used as input to additional encoding circuitry, specifically a data separating/merging part. This part receives encoded data and metadata, and then generates a new encoded output. Therefore, Baek teaches inputting codewords into an encoder and generates a third set of codewords.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach transmitting both data and metadata or transmitting metadata based on subsets. Baek teaches processing encoded data, and Peltz et al. (US 11,972,151), hereinafter Peltz, teaches extracting metadata from a codeword and transmitting the metadata, along with data for processing.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to teach modulation schemes. However, Choi et al. (US 10,498,358), hereinafter Choi, teaches binary symbol modulation and codeword generation.
Accordingly, the arguments are not persuasive and the independent claims do not overcome the rejection.
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.
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 the 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek, in view of Choi et al. (US 10,498,358), hereinafter Choi, and further in view of Peltz et al. (US 11,972,151), hereinafter Peltz.
Regarding claim 1, Baek teaches a method, comprising:
inputting a first set of codewords (Baek, col. 5, lines 14-17, “The ECC encoder 311 may perform an ECC encoding operation of the ‘k’-bit original data to generate and output the codeword having ‘n’-number of bits [also, referred to as a ‘n’-bit codeword]”; col. 5, lines 25-28, “Next, referring to FIGS. 1 and 3, the ‘n’-bit codeword outputted from the ECC encoder 311 may be inputted to the data separating part 331 of the data separating/merging part 330”; teaches the “n”-bit codeword generated from the ECC encoder serving as input to the data separating/merging part, which is the next stage in the encoding process) and a second set of codewords into an encoder (Baek, col. 9, lines 24-35, “Next, referring to FIGS. 8 and 11, the ‘(n+m)’-bit binary data stream outputted from the data inversion part 720 may be inputted to the data separating part 731 of the data separating/merging part 730. The data separating part 731 may separate the ‘(n+m)’-bit binary data stream into the ‘k’-bit original data and the ‘(n+m-k)’-bit metadata and may output the ‘k’-bit original data and the ‘(n+m-k)’-bit metadata which are separated from each other. As described above, the ‘(n+m-k)’-bit metadata may include the ‘(n-k)’-bit parity data and the ‘m’ -bit inversion status data”; teaches metadata that includes parity bits and inversion bits, also serving as input to data separating/merging part of the encoding process);
generating, using the encoder, a third set of codewords (Baek, col. 10, lines 3-6, “The data merging part 732 may merge the original data and the metadata to generate and output an ‘(n+m)’-bit binary data stream”; teaches the merging of original data and metadata to generate an output (n+m)-bit stream, which equates to a third set of codewords) that comprises a first subset of codewords representative of the data and a second subset of codewords representative of the metadata based at least in part on inputting the data and the metadata into the encoder (Baek, col. 10, lines 3-6 teaches the third set of codewords [output (n+m)-bit stream] being comprised of both the original data and metadata, which equates to a first subset of codewords and a second subset of codewords, respectively), wherein a first quantity of the first set of codewords is less than a second quantity of the third set of codewords associated (Baek teaches an n-bit codeword and a [n+m]-bit output, and n is less than [n+m]), and transmitting the data using the first subset of codewords (Baek, col. 4, lines 65-67, “The original data restored and corrected by the ECC decoder 312 may be transmitted to the host”; the original data equates to the first subset of codewords).
Baek fails to teach wherein the first set of codewords corresponds to data that is modulated in accordance with a first modulation scheme and the second set of codewords corresponds to metadata that is modulated in accordance with the first modulation scheme data, wherein the third set of codewords is modulated in accordance with a second modulation scheme, and transmitting the metadata using the second subset of codewords.
However, Choi, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the first set of codewords corresponds to data that is modulated in accordance with a first modulation scheme and the second set of codewords corresponds to metadata that is modulated in accordance with the first modulation scheme data (Choi, col. 6, lines 34-36, “Code ‘0’ is assigned to the symbol b corresponding to the left node, and code ‘1’ is assigned to the symbol e corresponding to the right node at the code table”; teaches binary symbol modulation and when combined with the binary data taught in Baek [“n”-bit codeword and the “(n+m-k)”-bit metadata], it teaches the limitation) and wherein the third set of codewords is modulated in accordance with a second modulation scheme (Choi, col. 5, lines 51-53, “The codeword determining circuit 320-1 determines a codeword corresponding to each symbol using the tree structure”; teaches single binary symbols being mapped into multi-bit codewords and when combined with the output [n+m]-bit stream taught in Baek, this teaches a different encoding or modulation scheme).
Baek and Choi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of digital encoding of data before data transmission.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Baek to incorporate the teachings of Choi by including the functionality of mapping binary symbols to multi-bit codewords as modulation schemes.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to improve the structure of encoded outputs.
The combination of Baek in view of Choi, taken singly or combined, fails to teach transmitting the metadata using the second subset of codewords.
However, Peltz, in an analogous art, teaches transmitting the data using the first subset of codewords and the metadata using the second subset of codewords (Peltz, Abstract, lines 7-9, “The metadata is then extracted from the decoded codewords and transferred to a controller of the data storage device”; teaches metadata being included with codewords and being transmitted).
Baek, Choi, and Peltz are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of digital encoding of data before data transmission.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Baek in view of Choi to incorporate the teachings of Peltz by including the functionality of transmitting metadata.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to improve the reliability of encoded data.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Baek in view of Choi, further in view of Peltz teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a read command associated with the data; and reading the data from one or more memory cells of a memory device based at least in part on receiving the read command, wherein inputting the first set of codewords and the second set of codewords into the encoder is based at least in part on reading the data (Baek, col. 4, lines 25-29, “The controller 300 may receive a write command or a read command from a host to perform a write operation for writing data into the first memory device 100 or a read operation for reading out data stored in the first memory device 100”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Baek in view of Choi, further in view of Peltz teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting one or more errors in the data based at least in part on performing an error control operation on the data; and generating the metadata based at least in part on detecting the one or more errors in the data (Baek, col. 4, lines 41-50, "If original data are inputted to the controller 300 by a write command outputted from the host, the ECC encoder 311 of the error correction part 310 may perform an error correction process including an ECC encoding operation on the original data inputted to the ECC encoder 311 during a write operation to generate and output a codeword including the original data and parity data. The codeword outputted from the ECC encoder 311 may be separated into the original data and the parity data by the data separating/merging part 330"), wherein the metadata indicates that the data is invalid (Peltz, col. 1, lines 58-62, "A flash translation layer [FTL] module at the controller then checks whether the data is valid by comparing the received metadata to FTL tables. If the metadata indicates the data is valid, then the data is relocated"; indicates that the metadata is capable of indicating that the data is not valid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Baek in view of Choi to incorporate the teachings of Peltz by including the functionality of the metadata indicating that the data is valid.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to determine if the data should be processed (Peltz, col. 8, lines 7-10, “The first FTL module 120 determines if the data 422 or portions of the data 422 is valid by checking the FTL tables. The valid portions of the data 422 are then encoded by the ECC encoder 416”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Baek in view of Choi, further in view of Peltz teaches the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the metadata and the data comprises: transmitting the metadata and the data (Baek, col. 10, lines 3-6, "The data merging part 732 may merge the original data and the metadata to generate and output an ‘[n+m]’-bit binary data stream") via a same channel (Peltz, Abstract, lines 7-9, “The metadata is then extracted from the decoded codewords and transferred to a controller of the data storage device”; teaches metadata being included with codewords and being transmitted) using a set of symbols modulated according to the second modulation scheme (Choi, col. 5, lines 51-53, “The codeword determining circuit 320-1 determines a codeword corresponding to each symbol using the tree structure”; teaches single binary symbols being mapped into multi-bit codewords and when combined with the output [n+m]-bit stream taught in Baek, this teaches a different encoding or modulation scheme).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Baek in view of Choi to incorporate the teachings of Peltz by including the functionality of using symbols modulated according toa modulation scheme in order to transmit data and metadata via the same channel.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to improve efficiency and make sure the metadata is available for transmission & decoding.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Baek in view of Choi, further in view of Peltz teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising: identifying a mapping between the metadata and a symbol of the set of symbols (Choi, col. 5, lines 10-11, “In an embodiment, a number of symbols and the frequency table are included in the meta data”; col. 5, lines 51-53, “The codeword determining circuit 320-1 determines a codeword corresponding to each symbol using the tree structure”), wherein transmitting the metadata is based at least in part on the mapping (Choi, col. 5, lines 12-13, “The meta data is included in the compressed data stream and output to be used for later decoding”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Baek in view of Choi, further in view of Peltz teaches the method of claim 4, wherein transmitting the metadata and the data comprises: transmitting a first subset of the set of symbols representative of the metadata prior to transmitting a second subset of the set of symbols representative of the data (Peltz, Fig. 5, blocks 504 & 506 teaches extracting the metadata from a codeword and using it for decoding before the data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Baek in view of Choi to incorporate the teachings of Peltz by including the functionality of processing metadata before the data.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to improve efficiency and data reliability.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Baek in view of Choi, further in view of Peltz teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: reallocating resources associated with the metadata based at least in part on the metadata comprising an indication that the data is invalid (Baek, col. 2, lines 53-55, “generate a binary data stream comprised of the codeword and inversion status data having information on whether the codeword is inverted data”; col. 2, lines 60-61, “The metadata includes the parity data and the inversion status data”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Baek in view of Choi, further in view of Peltz teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a third quantity of the first subset of codewords associated with the second modulation scheme is equal to the first quantity of codewords associated with the first modulation scheme (Baek teaches an n-bit codeword that consists of k bits of original data and [n+m-k] bits of metadata).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Baek in view of Choi, further in view of Peltz teaches the method of claim 8, wherein a fourth quantity of the second subset of the second set of codewords associated with the second modulation scheme is equal to a difference between the second quantity of codewords and the third quantity of codewords, and wherein the second subset of the second set of codewords comprises unassigned codewords corresponding to the second modulation scheme (Baek teaches a codeword made of data bits and metadata bits, with the metadata bits being made of parity and inversion status bits).
Claim 11 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium with limitations similar to the method of claim 1, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 12 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium with limitations similar to the method of claim 2, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium with limitations similar to the method of claim 3, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 14 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium with limitations similar to the method of claim 4, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium with limitations similar to the method of claim 7, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16 is an apparatus with limitations similar to the method of claim 1, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17 is an apparatus with limitations similar to the method of claim 2, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is an apparatus with limitations similar to the method of claim 3, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is an apparatus with limitations similar to the method of claim 4, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 is an apparatus with limitations similar to the method of claim 7, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek, in view of Choi, further in view of Peltz, and further in view of Noda (US 7,031,403).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Baek in view of Choi, further in view of Peltz teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first modulation scheme comprises a binary-symbol modulation scheme (Choi, col. 7, lines 17-19, "Code ‘0’ is added to the symbol [b,e] corresponding to the left node, and code ‘1’ is added to the symbol [d,c] corresponding to the right node at the code table").
The combination of Baek in view of Choi, further in view of Peltz, taken singly or combined, fails to teach the second modulation scheme comprises a ternary-symbol modulation scheme.
However, Noda, in an analogous art, teaches the second modulation scheme comprises a ternary-symbol modulation scheme (Noda, Abstract, lines 3-5, “a data converter converts an input data signal having 3 bits long as the input signal into first and second ternary converted data signals”).
Baek, Choi, Peltz and Noda are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of data transmission.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Baek in view of Choi, and further in view of Peltz by including the functionality of utilizing ternary-symbol modulation.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to provide more efficient data representation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE V BRADEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9AM-5:30 PM ET.
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 at (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 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.
/G.V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2112
/ALBERT DECADY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights