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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Pre-amble of dependent claims 2-13 are not in consistent with the pre-amble of the independent claim 1. Pre-amble of both independent and dependent claims should be in consistent format. Appropriate correction is required as following:
Claim 2: CHANGE Pre-amble to: “Digital system of claim 1 wherein one or more of said hardware blocks are not said self-contained within said digital system comprising:”.
Claim 3: CHANGE Pre-amble to: “Digital system of claim 1 wherein the first techniques comprising:”.
Claim 4: CHANGE Pre-amble to: “Digital system of claim 1 wherein the first techniques comprising:”.
Claim 5: CHANGE Pre-amble to: “Digital system of claim 1 wherein the first techniques comprising:”.
Claim 6: CHANGE Pre-amble to: “Digital system of claim 1 wherein the first techniques comprising:”.
Claim 7: CHANGE Pre-amble to: “Digital system of claim 1 wherein the first techniques comprising:”.
Claim 8: CHANGE Pre-amble to: “Digital system of claim 1 wherein the first techniques comprising:”.
Claim 9: CHANGE Pre-amble to: “Digital system of claim 1 wherein the first techniques comprising:”.
Claim 10: CHANGE Pre-amble to: “Digital system of claim 1 wherein the first techniques comprising:”.
Claim 11: CHANGE Pre-amble to: “Digital system of claim 1 wherein the first techniques comprising:”.
Claim 12: CHANGE Pre-amble to: “Digital system of claim 3 wherein the third column comprising:”.
Claim 13: CHANGE Pre-amble to: “Digital system of claim 3 wherein the third column comprising:”.
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
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 1-15 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claims 1-15 are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claims 1-15 must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patents cited.
Claims 1-15 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.
The term “a minimum size” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a minimum size” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-13 are rejected under 112(b) as well as being depended on based rejected claim 1.
The term “a maximum number of occurrences” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a maximum number of occurrences” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “the number of occurrences” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “the number of occurrences” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “minimum number” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimum number” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “maximum number of occurrences” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “maximum number of occurrences” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “a maximum number of occurrences” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a maximum number of occurrences” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “maximum number of same type” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “maximum number of same type” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “minimum number of bits” and “large number of lines” in claim 9 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimum number of bits” and “large number of lines” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “maximum number of located binary” and “largest number of lines” and “said pair ranges” in claim 10 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The “maximum number of located binary” and “largest number of lines” and “said pair ranges” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “maximum number of located binary” and “largest number of lines” and “said pair ranges” in claim 11 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The “maximum number of located binary” and “largest number of lines” and “said pair ranges” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “maximum number of occurrences” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “maximum number of occurrences” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “maximum number of occurrences” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “maximum number of occurrences” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “minimum size” “pairing ranges” “minimum number” in claim 14 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimum size” “pairing ranges” “minimum number” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “minimum size” “pairing ranges” “minimum number” “number of occurrences” “maximum number of occurrences” in claim 15 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimum size” “pairing ranges” “minimum number” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Cited References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited references are related to instant application subject matters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM T MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-1807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-2pm eastern time.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at 571 272-2105. 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.
/LAM T MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845