DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not
persuasive. Applicant's arguments are summarized below:
The Applicant respectfully disagrees.
There is no indefiniteness and it is well known (and discussed in detail in the Specification) that error correction codes commonly allow a decoding circuit to detect up to a first number of errors in an encoded data block, while allowing the decoding circuit to correct up to a second number of errors, where the second number is smaller than the first and it is well known (and discussed in detail in the Specification) that error correction codes commonly allow a decoding circuit to detect up to a first number of errors in an encoded data block, while allowing the decoding circuit to correct up to a second number of errors, where the second number is smaller than the first. Thus, it is well known that some errors in a received data error might be both detected by the code and correctable, while others might be detected but uncorrectable. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because “can be corrected, and cannot be corrected, and could be corrected” shows possibility to fix errors and further the phrases imply that the process exists to fix the error or it focuses on the ability of a person or system to perform the correction and furthermore describe a situation where action can be taken which makes the phrase to be indefinite while “errors are correctable or uncorrectable” is errors belong to the category of errors and often used in technical, formal, or logical contexts to categorize items (e.g., in manufacturing or data analysis). Therefore, the rejections of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is 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 1-7 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.
Claims 1, 4, and 7, recite the phrases “can be and cannot be" since languages that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. The language such as "can be or cannot be" may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim.
Claim 1, line 11 “can be corrected”, line 13 “cannot be corrected” and line 19, “could be corrected”; Claim 4, line 2 can be corrected”; Claim 7, line 13 “can be corrected” and claim 7, line 16 “cannot be corrected”, line 21 “could be corrected” are indefinite. The rejection above will treat the phases “can be" as ---is---. The rejection above will treat the phases “could be” as ---is---. The rejection above will treat the phases “cannot be” as ---is not---.
Dependent claims depend from the base claims and inherently include limitations therein and therefor are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as well.
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.
Conclusion
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