DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1:
This claim recites the limitations in line 7 “determine that a number of one or more bit positions, at each of which at least two of the first copy, the second copy or the third copy have bit values different from each other, is greater than a threshold value”. This claim is rendered indefinite because the threshold value is not defined. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to access what value of the threshold may be by the current claim language. This should be added to the claim. Clarification and correction are required.
Claim 11:
This claim exhibits the same ambiguities as claim 1 and is rejected as such.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20:
These claims are also rejected because they depend on a base rejected claim and have the same problems of indefiniteness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zopf. (US-20210058190) teaches systems, methods, and apparatus receive a corrupted packet of an original packet and at least one corrupted retransmitted packet of the original packet and generate a decision packet for the original packet based on identical bits of the original packet received through the corrupted packet and the at least one corrupted retransmitted packet. Embodiments verify the decision packet to determine whether the decision packet is correct based on a last one of the at least one corrupted retransmitted packet and a one or more cyclic redundancy check (CRC) operations. (Abstract). In one embodiment, the receiver 102 can request more than one retransmissions of the original packet 201 to collect more useful information to determine the locations of bit errors in the received corrupted packets. For example, the receiver 102 can request a second retransmission of the original packet 201 and receive a retransmitted packet 231 which may include one or more bit errors. The receiver 102 can generate an accumulated packet 232 based on the packet 211, the received retransmitted packets 221 and 231. The receiver 102 can generate the accumulated packet 232 by performing bitwise decimal addition on the packet 211 and the received retransmitted packets 221 and 231, similarly as described above. For example, the bit 2311 in the packet 231 is 1, thus, the soft bit 2321 at the corresponding bit location in the accumulated packet 232 has a value of 2 (i.e., 1+0+1). Also, the receiver 102 can generate a MDP 233 based on the accumulated packet 232, similarly as described above. The MDP 233 may be used as a guess of the original Bluetooth® packet 201. For example, the soft bit 2321 having a value of 2 may indicate that it has a higher confidence level that the correct bit at that bit location is 1. This is because in three transmissions (one original transmission and two retransmissions), two (i.e., bits 2113 and 2311) of the three bit values at that bit location are 1. Accordingly, the receiver 102 can determine that, in the MDP 233, the bit 2331 (a guess of the correct bit) at that bit location is 1. (¶¶ [0024]-[0025]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J TABONE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3827. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 7 PM EST.
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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at (571) 270-3750. 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.
/JOHN J TABONE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111 01/24/2026
Prosecution Insights