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 presented for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/23/2026 was received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language “may receive”, “may be selected”, “may identify”, and “may generate” are speculative and fail to provide a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent”.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a codeword for memory stored on a memory” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “memory”.
Specifically, one of ordinary skill would be unclear if “memory” is a physical item or an alternative.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “identifying a best decoding result” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “best”.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “memory metadata for the memory” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “memory”.
Specifically, one of ordinary skill would be unclear if “memory” is a physical item or an alternative.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “the best decoding result of the plurality of decoding results that indicates no error” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “best”.
Specifically, the examiner asserts in the case on multiple decoding results of the plurality of decoding results producing no error, which result would be best.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “identifying the best decoding result of the plurality of decoding results that indicates correctable error when the other decoding results of the plurality of decoding results indicate uncorrectable error” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “best”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the other decoding results". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “identifiably distinct” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of the language.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “identifying best decoding results associated with each codeword of the plurality of codewords” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “best”.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “identifying the best decoding result includes identifying which polynomial of the plurality of polynomials decoded each codeword of the plurality of codewords” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “best”.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “receiving memory to be stored on a memory” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “memory”.
Specifically, one of ordinary skill would be unclear if “memory” is a physical item or an alternative.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “with different metadata sections” and “a plurality of encoding metadata sections of the plurality of metadata sections, the plurality of encoding metadata sections combinable to form the metadata” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of the relationship between “different metadata sections”, “a plurality of metadata sections”, and “metadata”.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the plurality of metadata sections are representative of digits of the metadata” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “digits”.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “multiple digits” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “digits”.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “the digits” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “digits”.
Any claim not addressed above is rejected due to its dependency on a rejected claim.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1 – 3, 8 – 15, and 17 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,308,857 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
Claim 1 – Application 19/190411
Claim 1 – Patent 12,308,857
A method implemented at a memory controller, comprising:
A method implemented at a memory controller,
Claim 6
receiving a codeword for memory stored on a memory;
receiving a codeword for memory stored on a memory;
decoding the codeword using a plurality of polynomials to generate a plurality of decoding results, each polynomial of the plurality of polynomials associated with different metadata from a predetermined list of metadata;
decoding the codeword using a plurality of polynomials to generate a plurality of decoding results, each polynomial of the plurality of polynomials associated with different metadata from a predetermined list of metadata;
identifying a best decoding result from the plurality of decoding results; and
identifying a best decoding result from the plurality of decoding results; and
identifying memory metadata for the memory from the predetermined list of metadata associated with the memory based on the best decoding result.
identifying memory metadata for the memory from the predetermined list of metadata associated with the memory based on the best decoding result.
One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize independent claim 1, of application 19/190411 is an obvious variation of the claimed subject matter of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 6, of patent 12,308,857. Specifically, both claim 1, of the current application 19/190411, and claims 1 and 6, of patent 12,308,857 discloses: A method implemented at a memory controller, comprising such steps as “decoding the codeword using a plurality of polynomials to generate a plurality of decoding results, each polynomial of the plurality of polynomials associated with different metadata from a predetermined list of metadata”.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the method disclosed by claim 1, of the current application 19/190411, as a broad recitation of the operations performed by the method disclosed in claims 1 and 6 of Patent 12,308,857. A method performing the operations and a method capable of performing the disclosed operations would be recognize by one of ordinary skill in the art as obvious variants of each other.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the method claim 1, of the current application 19/190411, as performing the operations of the method of claims 1 and 6, of U.S. Patent 12,308,857, and as such are obvious variants of each other.
Claim 2 – Application 19/190411
Claim 2 – Patent 12,308,857
Claim 3 – Application 19/190411
Claim 3 – Patent 12,308,857
Claim 4 – Application 19/190411
Claim 8 – Patent 12,308,857
Claim 5 – Application 19/190411
Claim 10 – Patent 12,308,857
Claim 6 – Application 19/190411
Claim 11 – Patent 12,308,857
Claim 7 – Application 19/190411
Claim 12 – Patent 12,308,857
Claim 8 – Application 19/190411
Claim 13 – Patent 12,308,857
Claim 9 – Application 19/190411
Claim 14 – Patent 12,308,857
Claim 10 – Application 19/190411
Claim 15 – Patent 12,308,857
Claim 11 – Application 19/190411
Claim 9 – Patent 12,308,857
Claim 12 – Application 19/190411
Claim 1 – Patent 12,308,857
Claim 13 – Application 19/190411
Claim 10 – Patent 12,308,857
Claim 14 – Application 19/190411
Claim 1 – Patent 12,308,857
Claim 15 – Application 19/190411
Claim 17 – Patent 12,308,857
Claim 16 – Application 19/190411
Claim 18 – Patent 12,308,857
Claim 17 – Application 19/190411
Claim 19 – Patent 12,308,857
Claim 18 – Application 19/190411
Claim 20 – Patent 12,308,857
Claim 19 – Application 19/190411
Claim 1 – Patent 12,308,857
Claim 20 – Application 19/190411
Claim 1 – Patent 12,308,857
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Achtenberg et al., U.S. Publication 2018/0374548 (herein Achtenberg)
Regarding claim 1, Achtenberg discloses: A method implemented at a memory controller (figure 3), comprising: receiving a codeword for memory stored on a memory (figure 3; paragraph 0046); decoding the codeword using a plurality of polynomials to generate a plurality of decoding results, each polynomial of the plurality of polynomials associated with different metadata from a predetermined list of metadata (paragraph 0077 – 0081); identifying a best decoding result from the plurality of decoding results (paragraph 0077 – 0081); and identifying memory metadata for the memory from the predetermined list of metadata associated with the memory based on the best decoding result (figure 8A-D; paragraph 0098).
Regarding claim 2, Achtenberg discloses: the memory metadata is not encoded in the codeword (figure 6A-C; paragraph 0084 – 0092).
Regarding claim 3, Achtenberg discloses: the memory metadata is not stored on the memory (figure 6A-C; paragraph 0084 – 0092).
Regarding claim 4, Achtenberg discloses: the predetermined list of metadata is stored on the memory controller (figure 8A-D; paragraph 0098).
Regarding claim 5, Achtenberg discloses: identifying the best decoding result includes identifying the best decoding result of the plurality of decoding results that indicates no error (paragraph 0077 – 0081).
Regarding claim 6, Achtenberg discloses: identifying the best decoding result includes identifying the best decoding result of the plurality of decoding results that indicates correctable error when the other decoding results of the plurality of decoding results indicate uncorrectable error (paragraph 0077 – 0081).
Regarding claim 7, Achtenberg discloses: each decoding result of the plurality of decoding results is identifiably distinct using an associated polynomial of the plurality of polynomials (paragraph 0077 – 0081).
Regarding claim 8, Achtenberg discloses: receiving the codeword includes receiving a plurality of codewords, each codeword of the plurality of codewords decoded by each polynomial of the plurality of polynomials (paragraph 0077 – 0081).
Regarding claim 9, Achtenberg discloses: identifying the best decoding result includes identifying best decoding results associated with each codeword of the plurality of codewords (paragraph 0077 – 0081).
Regarding claim 10, Achtenberg discloses: identifying the best decoding result includes identifying which polynomial of the plurality of polynomials decoded each codeword of the plurality of codewords (paragraph 0077 – 0081).
Regarding claim 11, Achtenberg discloses: an association between the metadata and the plurality of polynomials is stored on the memory controller (figure 8A-D; paragraph 0098).
Regarding claim 12, Achtenberg discloses: the codeword includes the memory metadata and an error correcting code (figure 3; paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 13, Achtenberg discloses: outputting the memory metadata and an error correcting code (figure 3; paragraph 0046); and performing error correction using the error correcting code (figure 3; paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 14, Achtenberg discloses: A method implemented at a memory controller (figure 3), comprising: receiving memory to be stored on a memory (figure 3; paragraph 0046); receiving metadata related to the memory, the metadata selected from a predetermined list of metadata (figure 7, element 712; paragraph 0094); identifying a plurality of encoding polynomials from a plurality of polynomials that is associated with the metadata, each polynomial of the plurality of polynomials associated with different metadata sections of a plurality of metadata sections, the plurality of encoding polynomials associated with a plurality of encoding metadata sections of the plurality of metadata sections, the plurality of encoding metadata sections combinable to form the metadata (figure 8A-D; paragraph 98); and generating a plurality of codewords using the plurality of encoding polynomials of the plurality of polynomials and the memory (figure 6A-C; paragraph 0084 – 0092).
Regarding claim 15, Achtenberg discloses: the plurality of codewords are identified in a codeword order (figure 6A-C; paragraph 0084 – 0092).
Regarding claim 16, Achtenberg discloses: the plurality of metadata sections are representative of digits of the metadata, and further comprising identifying a digit location for the plurality of encoding metadata sections based on the codeword order (figure 8A-D; paragraph 0098).
Regarding claim 17, Achtenberg discloses: the metadata is not stored on the memory (figure 6A-C; paragraph 0084 – 0092).
Regarding claim 18, Achtenberg discloses: the metadata is not encoded in any of the plurality of codewords (figure 6A-C; paragraph 0084 – 0092).
Regarding claim 19, Achtenberg discloses: the metadata includes multiple digits (figure 8A-D; paragraph 0098).
Regarding claim 20, Achtenberg discloses: the method further includes separating the metadata into the different metadata sections based on the digits (figure 8A-D; paragraph 0098).
Closest Prior Art of Record
Sprouse et al., U.S. Patent 9,768,808
Sprouse discloses: modifying an error correction format of a respective memory portion of non-volatile memory in a storage device. In one aspect, the method includes, for respective memory portions of the non-volatile memory, obtaining a performance metric of the respective memory portion, and modifying a current error correction format in accordance with the measured performance metric, the current error correction format corresponding to a code rate, codeword structure, and error correction type. Furthermore, data is stored, and errors are detected and corrected, in the respective memory portion in accordance with the modified error correction format. The current and modified error correction formats are distinct, and comprise two of a sequence of predefined error correction formats, wherein a plurality of the sequence of predefined error correction formats have a same number of error correction bits and different numbers of data bits.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Stolpman; Victor James et al. US 20150229439 A1
HOEKSTRA; GEORGE P. et al. US 20150318871 A1
Glew; Andrew F. et al. US 20130024939 A1
HADY; Frank T. US 20170286287 A1
McCrate; Joseph M. et al. US 20230223961 A1
Henry; G. Glenn et al. US 10235232 B2
Hekstra; Ewa B. US 6363513 B1
Mccrate; Joseph M. et al. US 12536065 B2
decoding the codeword using a plurality of polynomials to generate a plurality of decoding results, each polynomial of the plurality of polynomials associated with different metadata from a predetermined list of metadata
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL F MCMAHON whose telephone number is (571)270-3232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am - 5pm EST.
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.
/Daniel F. McMahon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111
