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 .
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 1-4, 7-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 11,513,897), hereinafter Wu, in view of Koike-Akino et al. (US 11,463,114), hereinafter Koike-Akino.
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a data processing method, comprising: obtaining an information bit sequence (Wu, Fig. 8A, steps 815-820 teach receiving input data and partitioning the input data units before encoding; the partitioned input data units equate to an information bit sequence); encoding the information bit sequence based on an encoding matrix
G
to obtain encoded data (Wu, Figs. 3, 6, 8A & 8B teaches constructing a coupled code matrix structure, the use of a generator matrix, performing matrix multiplication, matrix addition, and combining encoding data units into a target codeword), wherein the encoding matrix
G
=
G
N
'
O
⋯
O
O
G
N
'
⋯
O
⋯
⋯
⋱
⋯
G
N
'
G
N
'
⋯
G
N
'
,
G
is a matrix with a size of
m
×
2
n
×
m
×
2
n
,
m
and
n
are positive integers (Wu, Fig. 6 teaches a block generator matrix mad of multiple component generator matrices
G
1
,
G
2
,
…
,
G
m
arranged within a larger coupled code matrix structure; while Wu does not explicitly teach the exact claimed dimensions, the coupled matrix is formed from multiple component generator matrices arranged into a larger generator matrix), the matrix
G
N
'
is a polar generator matrix with a size of
2
n
×
2
n
(Wu teaches error correction on length-compatible polar codes and utilizes polar code generator matrices; the component matrices
G
1
,
…
,
G
m
are generator matrices used in the coupled polar code construction); and sending the encoded data (Wu, Figs. 3 & 8A teaches a target codeword being generated and transmitted/stored as encoded output).
Wu fails to teach the matrix
O
is an all-zero matrix with a size of
2
n
×
2
n
.
However, Koike-Akino, in an analogous art, teaches the matrix
O
is an all-zero matrix with a size of
2
n
×
2
n
(Koike-Akino, col. 19, lines 63-64, “where O denotes an all-zeros matrix [i.e., a weight-zero permutation] of size QxQ”).
Wu and Koike-Akino are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of the use of polar codes in memory systems.
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 Wu to incorporate the teachings of Koike-Akino by including the functionality of an all-zero matrix.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to allow for a flexible generator matrix construction.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wu in view of Koike-Akino teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the encoding the information bit sequence includes encoding
m
segments, and a polar generator matrix of each segment is
G
N
'
(Wu, Fig. 8A, steps 815-820 teach receiving input data and partitioning the input data units before encoding; Figs. 3, 6, 8A & 8B teaches constructing a coupled code matrix structure, the use of a generator matrix, performing matrix multiplication, matrix addition, and combining encoding data units into a target codeword).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wu in view of Koike-Akino teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the encoding the
m
segments includes encoding quantities of information bits in the
m
segments including
k
0
,
k
1
,
…
,
k
m
-
1
, wherein
k
0
is less than
k
m
-
1
, and
k
0
≤
k
1
≤
…
≤
k
m
-
1
. This claim represents an obvious design parameter because it teaches selecting relative segment sizes.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wu in view of Koike-Akino teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the encoding the m segments includes encoding a quantity of information bits in an
i
t
h
segment is
k
i
, wherein
i
satisfies
0
≤
i
≤
m
-
1
(Wu teaches partitioning input data units, and every partitioned unit inherently has some number of information bits in each partitioned unit).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wu in view of Koike-Akino teaches The method according to claim 1, further comprising: performing elementary column transformation on the encoding matrix
G
, wherein a transformed encoding matrix
G
'
=
O
G
N
'
⋯
O
O
O
⋯
⋯
⋯
⋯
⋱
G
N
'
G
N
'
G
N
'
⋯
G
N
'
; and encoding the information bit sequence based on the transformed encoding matrix G' to obtain the encoded data (Koike-Akino, col. 6, lines 10-35 teaches a lifting operation for a generator matrix of a polar base code, using replication an d permutation, and decomposing the generator matrix into sub-generator matrices).
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 Wu to incorporate the teachings of Koike-Akino by including the functionality of matrix transformation/permutation techniques.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to provide an alternative generator matrix structure and allowing for matrix construction flexibility.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wu in view of Koike-Akino teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the encoding the
m
segments includes encoding quantities of information bits in the
m
segments including
k
0
,
k
1
,
…
,
k
m
-
1
, wherein
k
1
is less than
k
0
, and
k
1
≤
…
≤
k
m
-
1
≤
k
0
. This claim represents an obvious design parameter because it teaches selecting relative segment sizes.
Regarding claim 10, Wu teaches a data processing method, comprising: receiving encoded data (Wu, Figs. 7 & 8A teaches decoding noisy output); wherein the encoded data is obtained by encoding an information bit sequence based on an encoding matrix G (Wu, Fig. 8A, steps 815-820 teach receiving input data and partitioning the input data units before encoding; Figs. 3, 6, 8A & 8B teaches constructing a coupled code matrix structure, the use of a generator matrix, performing matrix multiplication, matrix addition, and combining encoding data units into a target codeword), wherein the encoding matrix
G
=
G
N
'
O
⋯
O
O
G
N
'
⋯
O
⋯
⋯
⋱
⋯
G
N
'
G
N
'
⋯
G
N
'
,
G
is a matrix with a size of
m
×
2
n
×
m
×
2
n
,
m
and
n
are positive integers (Wu, Fig. 6 teaches a block generator matrix mad of multiple component generator matrices
G
1
,
G
2
,
…
,
G
m
arranged within a larger coupled code matrix structure; while Wu does not explicitly teach the exact claimed dimensions, the coupled matrix is formed from multiple component generator matrices arranged into a larger generator matrix), the matrix
G
N
'
is a polar generator matrix with a size of
2
n
×
2
n
(Wu teaches error correction on length-compatible polar codes and utilizes polar code generator matrices; the component matrices
G
1
,
…
,
G
m
are generator matrices used in the coupled polar code construction); and decoding the encoded data to obtain decoded data (Wu, Fig. 7 teaches multiple decoders operating on coupled code structures; Fig. 8A teaches a decoding operation).
Wu fails to teach the matrix
O
is an all-zero matrix with a size of
2
n
×
2
n
.
However, Koike-Akino, in an analogous art, teaches the matrix
O
is an all-zero matrix with a size of
2
n
×
2
n
(Koike-Akino, col. 19, lines 63-64, “where O denotes an all-zeros matrix [i.e., a weight-zero permutation] of size QxQ”).
Wu and Koike-Akino are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of the use of polar codes in memory systems.
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 Wu to incorporate the teachings of Koike-Akino by including the functionality of an all-zero matrix.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to allow for a flexible generator matrix construction.
Claim 11 is a method with similar limitations as claim 2, and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Koike-Akino, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Maunder et al. (US 11,146,294), hereinafter Maunder.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Wu in view of Koike-Akino teaches the method according to claim 10, but fails to teach wherein the decoding the encoded data to obtain decoded data includes: obtaining marked data corresponding to a 0th segment of encoded data and marked data corresponding to a 1st segment of encoded data; performing an F operation on the marked data corresponding to the 0th segment of encoded data and the marked data corresponding to the 1st segment of encoded data, to obtain marked data corresponding to the 1st segment of encoded data after the F operation; performing polar code decoding on the marked data corresponding to the 1st segment of encoded data after the F operation, to obtain decoded data corresponding to the 1st segment of encoded data; and enhancing, based on the marked data corresponding to the 1st segment of encoded data and the decoded data corresponding to the 1st segment of encoded data, the marked data corresponding to the 0th segment of encoded data.
However, Maunder, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the decoding the encoded data to obtain decoded data includes: obtaining marked data corresponding to a 0th segment of encoded data and marked data corresponding to a 1st segment of encoded data (Maunder, Fig. 15 teaches multiple encoded portions with intermediate decoding values [i.e. LLRs]); performing an F operation on the marked data corresponding to the 0th segment of encoded data and the marked data corresponding to the 1st segment of encoded data (Maunder, Fig. 22 teaches an F operation and G operation used in polar decoding), to obtain marked data corresponding to the 1st segment of encoded data after the F operation (Maunder, Fig. 22 teaches an F operation and G operation used in polar decoding); performing polar code decoding on the marked data corresponding to the 1st segment of encoded data after the F operation, to obtain decoded data corresponding to the 1st segment of encoded data (Maunder teaches Successive Cancellation [SC] decoding, which computes an output, recursively decodes the output to obtain decoded bits); and enhancing, based on the marked data corresponding to the 1st segment of encoded data and the decoded data corresponding to the 1st segment of encoded data, the marked data corresponding to the 0th segment of encoded data (Maunder teaches Successive Cancellation [SC] decoding, which performs a partial-sum update portion, here after decoding one input, the decoder updates information used by another input).
Wu, Koike-Akino, and Maunder are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of the use of polar codes in memory systems.
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 Wu in view of Koike-Akino to incorporate the teachings of Maunder by including the functionality of an F operation, successive cancellation decoding operations, and updating decoding information based on previously decoded information.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to improve decoding efficiency and allow for recovery of encoded data using polar-code generator matrices.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Wu in view of Koike-Akino, further in view of Maunder, teaches the method according to claim 12, further comprising: obtaining marked data corresponding to a
q
t
h
segment of encoded data, wherein
q
is
2
≤
q
≤
m
-
1
; performing an F operation on the marked data corresponding to the
q
t
h
segment of encoded data and enhanced marked data corresponding to the 0th segment of encoded data, to obtain marked data corresponding to the
q
t
h
segment of encoded data after the F operation; performing polar code decoding on the marked data corresponding to the
q
t
h
segment of encoded data after the F operation, to obtain decoded data corresponding to the
q
t
h
segment of encoded data; and enhancing, based on the marked data corresponding to the
q
t
h
segment of encoded data and the decoded data corresponding to the
q
t
h
segment of encoded data, the enhanced marked data corresponding to the 0th segment of encoded data. The claim is an iterative repetition of the same process taught in claim 12, and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
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 Wu in view of Koike-Akino to incorporate the teachings of Maunder by including the functionality of an F operation, successive cancellation decoding operations, and updating decoding information based on previously decoded information.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to improve decoding efficiency and allow for recovery of encoded data using polar-code generator matrices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14-17 are allowed.
Regarding independent claim 14, the following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art made of record fails to teach or suggest generating encoded data segments wherein a first encoded segment corresponds to a designated buffered data piece and remaining encoded segments are generated by performing exclusive-OR processing between respective buffered data pieces and the designated buffered data piece, as taught in independent claim 14.
Claims 15-17 are dependent on claim 14, and are therefore allowed under the same rationale.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kameyama et al. (US 2016/0211942) teaches generating and storing encoded data pieces and XOR-based generation of additional encoded data pieces.
Tan et al. (US 10,862,646) teaches segmented coding architectures and combining operations among coded segments.
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