DETAILED ACTION
Applicants’ response filed 9/28/2026 has been considered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 7-26 are pending.
Prior rejections are maintained in view of remarks made herein.
It is noted the prior rejections were not addressed in the response. Only minor amendments were made.
Application is pending.
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 7-26 are 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.
For example, claim 7 recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
202
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim states, “…correcting a detected first bit error in the first codeword; detecting second bit errors in the second codeword…”
This limitation falsely assumes that the first codeword will definitely have a first bit error and that the second codeword will definitely have multiple bit errors.
How can these errors be true all the time? They can’t. Therefore these limitations are indefinite.
Then the claim states, “…inverting bits associated with the second bit errors; and correcting the second bit errors with an error code correction ECC algorithm.”
This limitation lacks clarity.
If the bits that are in error are inverted, then by definition those bits are corrected.
What is the function of the next limitation of correcting the second bit errors with an error code correction ECC algorithm?
Is the correction done by inverting the bits or is the correction done after the inverting?
Essential elements are missing from the claims.
The claim refers to an error code correction algorithm twice in the claim.
There is lack of proper antecedent basis for this limitation.
Is there one or are there multiple error code correction algorithms?
Essential elements are missing.
Independent claims 14 and 21 are rejected for similar reasons. Respective dependent claims are rejected at least based on dependency.
Corrections are requested.
Conclusion
It is the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims of the present application, as presented, are not clear. Pertinent prior arts cited for Applicants’ review. Applicants are encouraged to formulate claims that clearly define the novelty of the application.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUJTABA M CHAUDRY whose telephone number is (571)272-3817. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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.
MUJTABA M. CHAUDRY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2112
/MUJTABA M CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112
