DETAILED ACTION
The current Office Action is in response to the papers submitted 08/12/2026. Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 17, and 20 - 21 are pending.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 – 2, 4 – 17, and 20 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “calculate a final number of times of the data deletion and optimization by adding a number of times that the data deletion and optimization is performed by the processor to a number of times that the data deletion and optimization has been performed on the memory card”. This is a new limitation, and the applicant points to paragraphs 70 – 72 and 86 – 90 of the specification as showing support for the new limitation. Paragraph 86 discloses calculating the final number of times of the data deletion and optimization. However, the method used in paragraph 86 discloses adding the number of times deletion/optimization is performed on the memory card that is counted by the data deletion/optimization count module to the number of times the data is deleted/optimized that is automatically recognized by the memory card automatic recognition module. This is different than what is claimed. There is no mention in the specification of the number of times an operation is performed by the processor. Paragraph 86 also adds the number of times deletion/optimization is performed on the memory card to the number of times the data is deleted/optimized that is automatically recognized by the memory card automatic recognition module. There is no mention of the memory card automatic recognition module in the claims.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “calculate a final number of times of the data deletion and optimization by adding a number of times that the data deletion and optimization is performed by the data deletion/optimization circuit to a number of times that the data deletion and optimization has been performed on the memory card”. This is a new limitation, and the applicant points to paragraphs 70 – 72 and 86 – 90 of the specification as showing support for the new limitation. Paragraph 86 discloses calculating the final number of times of the data deletion and optimization. However, the method used in paragraph 86 discloses adding the number of times deletion/optimization is performed on the memory card that is counted by the data deletion/optimization count module to the number of times the data is deleted/optimized that is automatically recognized by the memory card automatic recognition module. This is different than what is claimed. There is no mention in the specification of a number of times that the data deletion and optimization is performed by the data deletion/optimization circuit as claimed. Paragraph 86 discloses a deletion/optimization count module, which can be considered a circuit, is used to count the number of times the deletion/optimization is performed on the memory card. Paragraph 86 also adds the number of times deletion/optimization is performed on the memory card to the number of times the data is deleted/optimized that is automatically recognized by the memory card automatic recognition module. There is no mention of the memory card automatic recognition module in the claims.
All remaining claims are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 17, and 20 - 21 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.
As indicated above, claims 1 and 4 disclose different methods to calculate the final number of times of the data deletion and optimization than what is disclosed in the original specification. This makes the scope of the claims indefinite since it is unclear which method is meant to be used to calculate the final number of times of the data deletion and optimization. The calculation performed in paragraph 86 is related, but still different, to what is now recited in the amended claims. Paragraph 86 adds the number of times deletion/optimization is performed on the memory card to the number of times the data is deleted/optimized that is automatically recognized by the memory card automatic recognition module. There is no mention of the memory card automatic recognition module in the claims. This makes it unclear if the memory card automatic recognition module is used in the calculation of the final number of times of the data deletion and optimization and how the final number of times of the data deletion and optimization is actually calculated.
All remaining claims are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER D BIRKHIMER whose telephone number is (571)270-1178. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 Hoteling.
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, Tim Vo can be reached at 571-272-3642. 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.
/Christopher D Birkhimer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138
Prosecution Insights