DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Applicant's amendments filed on 02/16/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, and 12 have been amended.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Claims 1 and 3-12 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-12 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments are summarized below:
Applicant submits that claims 1 and 3-12 are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant submits that claims 1 and 3-12 are clear under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Applicant submits that independent claims 1 and 9 are patentable over the amended features recited by claims 1 and 9. The applicant argues that the present amendments make clear the relationship between the first and second codes, and spell out a rule according to which processing proceeds from the first code to the first code only in the event that the first code indicates an error, and otherwise indicates that the codeword is error-free. These aspects of the claimed method are not present in Oh.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with point B and C.
A) The rejection of claims 1 and 3-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn in view of applicant's amendment to the specification and corresponding remarks.
B) The rejection of claims 1 and 3-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is still maintained. The rejection is explained and further in detailed below.
withdrawn in view of applicant's amendments.
C) The applicant argues Oh did not teach a rule according to which processing proceeds from the first code to the first code only in the event that the first code indicates an error otherwise the codeword is free
The Examiner respectfully disagrees since Oh in columns 19 and 20, example 21 describes determining that the first and second syndromes are not zero (which shows the presence or error), example 23 describes determining that the recalculated first syndrome does not equal zero (which shows error presence of error), example 26 describes that the first syndrome does not equal to zero (which shows the presence of error) and the second syndrome is equal to zero (which shows error free) and example 35 describes the circuitry may also receive the data, ECC and parity bits included in the first and second codewords responsive to an access of the first and second codewords from the plurality of memory devices. The circuitry may also calculate a first syndrome for the first codeword using the ECC bits. The circuitry may also calculate a second syndrome for the second codeword using the parity bits. The circuitry may also determine whether the first codeword has detected bit errors based on whether the calculated first syndrome equals 0. The circuitry may also determine whether the second codeword has detected bit errors based on whether the calculated second syndrome equals 0. It is also usually known that a first syndrome is calculated based on a received data word to detect if errors are present and if the first syndrome detects an error, a second syndrome is calculated by combining components of the first syndrome. Further, the reference is not required to teach the exact claim language to that of the present invention. The concepts are taught to the extent required by the actual claim language. Furthermore, the interpretation of the claim language must be as broad as possible for the given art. If the Applicant needs a specific interpretation of the claim language, these details must be imported into the claims. These details cannot be read into the claim language when the claim language is so broad as to encompass other valid interpretations. Applicants are advised to review Oh references in its entirety for a complete and better understanding of the prior art applied. This may enhance the Applicants ability to formulate claim language that includes novelty of the application. It is the Examiner's conclusion that the claims of the present application, as presented, are not patentably distinct or novel over the prior arts of record. Applicants are encouraged to formulate claim language that clearly differentiates the claims from the prior art of record. Therefore, the rejections of claims 1, 3-8, and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) are maintained.
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 and 3-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “receiving a data word in the form of a codeword, the codeword being a received version of an encoding of an original data word according to a second code, determining a first syndrome of a first code, the first code being contained within the second code and the first syndrome having components”. The term “according to” does not narrow the claim because it does not indicate any step performed or does not describe how the second code lead to the encoding process of an original data word. Overall, the claim appears to have many missing elements among the limitations stated. There isn't a complete thought process or flow throughout the claim. Essential elements appear to be missing from the claims that are necessary to make the claim complete and clear as a whole. Interconnections between the first code and the second code are confusing and for the most part not detailed or mentioned in the claim. It is difficult to translate the claim and follow what processes are taking place.
Thus, it is respectfully submitted that the claim language has some issues as described above that needed amends.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “receiving a data word in the form of a codeword, the codeword being a received version of an encoding of an original data word according to a second code, determining a first syndrome of a first code, the first code being contained within the second code”. The term “according to” does not narrow the claim because it does not indicate any step performed or how the second code lead to the encoding process of an original data word. Overall, the claim appears to have many missing elements among the limitations stated. There isn't a complete thought process or flow throughout the claim. Essential elements appear to be missing from the claims that are necessary to make the claim complete and clear as a whole. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that the claim language has some issues as described above that needed amends. Further, the claim recites “determining a syndrome of another code responsive to the syndrome of the first code indicating an error in the received data word, and selectively processing the received data word further according to a rule by which:(m) an error correction is carried out on the basis of the syndrome of the other code if possible, and,(b) otherwise, error correction on the basis of the other code is not possible, a second syndrome of a second code is determined, wherein the other code is contained in the second code, and the first code is contained in the other code”. Interconnections between the first code, another code, other code, and the second code are confusing and for the most part not detailed or mentioned in the claim. It is difficult to translate the claim and follow what processes are taking place.
Dependent claims depend from the base claims and inherently include limitations therein and therefore are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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, 3-8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Oh et al. "herein Oh" (U.S. PN: 11,157,359).
As per claim 1:
Oh substantially teaches or discloses a method for processing a data word, in which a data word is received (see col. 12, lines 19-32) in which a first syndrome of a first code is determined, the first syndrome having components, and in which a second syndrome of a second code is determined when the syndrome of the first code recognizes an error, the second syndrome comprising the components of the first syndrome (see col. 12, lines 19-32, and col. 16, lines 62-67 and columns 19 and 20).
As per claim 2:
Oh substantially teaches, in view of the above rejections, in which the received data word is recognized as error-free if no errors were recognized on the basis of the first syndrome of the first code (see col. 17, lines 11-14).
As per claim 3:
Oh substantially teaches, in view of the above rejections, in which if an error was recognized on the basis of the first syndrome of the first code, this error is corrected by means of the second code (see col. 7, lines 15-50).
As per claim 4:
Oh substantially teaches, in view of the above rejections, in which the first code can recognize at least t bit errors and the second code can correct t bit errors (see col. 8, lines 60-67 to col. 9, lines 1-19).
As per claim 5:
Oh substantially teaches, in view of the above rejections, in which the first code has a minimum distance of t + 1 (see col. 8, lines 60-67 to col. 9, lines 1-19).
As per claim 6:
Oh substantially teaches, in view of the above rejections, in which the first code and/or the second code is a linear code (see col. 6, lines 20-29).
As per claim 7:
Oh substantially teaches, in view of the above rejections, in which the data word has data bits or data bits and redundancy bits (see col. 11, lines 44-58).
As per claim 8:
Oh substantially teaches, in view of the above rejections, in which if an error was recognized on the basis of the first syndrome of the first code, this error is corrected by means of the second code only in the data bits (see col. 7, lines 15-50).
As per claim 11:
Oh substantially teaches, in view of the above rejections, a device for processing a data word, configured to carry out the steps of the method according to claim 1 (see col. 10, lines 54- 67 and to col. 11, lines 1-58).
As per claim 12:
Oh substantially teaches, in view of the above rejections, a computer program product that is directly loadable into a memory of a digital computer, comprising program code parts configured to carry out steps of the method of claim 1 (see figure 16).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESAW T ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3812. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4:30PM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner'ssupervisor, Albert DeCady can be reached on (571) 272-3819. The fax phonenumber for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is(703) 872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ESAW T ABRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights