DETAILED ACTION
Application filed 10/31/2024 has been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification and drawings are accepted.
IDS has been considered. PTO-1449 is attached.
Application is pending.
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.
For example, claim 1 recites:
An apparatus comprising:
a receiver configured to receive T copies of first data including a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) code, wherein T is an even number greater than or equal to 4; and
one or more processors configured to: determine a first set of bit positions, at each of which T/2 copies of the first data have a same first bit value different from a same second bit value of the other T/2 copies of the first data;
determine a second set of bit positions, at each of which more than T/2 copies of the first data have a same bit value different from a bit value at a corresponding bit position of the first copy; and
correct, using the first set of bit positions and the second set of bit positions, an error contained in the first copy.
The claim lacks clarity.
The claim states, “…a receiver configured to receive T copies of first data including a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) code, wherein T is an even number greater than or equal to 4…”
This is understood as the receiver receiving T copies of the first data which are exactly the same since these are copies. If this is not the case, then the claim can be interpreted in multiple ways.
If T is an even number greater than or equal to 4 then this could include 4, 6, 8, etc.
Are the T copies received at the same time in parallel or in sequence?
Essential elements are missing from the claim.
Then the claim recites, “…determine a first set of bit positions, at each of which T/2 copies of the first data have a same first bit value different from a same second bit value of the other T/2 copies of the first data…”
This limitation appears to be contradictory.
If T copies of the first data are received at the receiver then it is assumed these are the exact same copies, hence the term copy.
However, if T/2 copies have the same bit first bit value, then how is the second bit value for the other T/2 copies be different. This does not make sense if all the T copies are in fact the same.
Essential elements are missing from the claim language.
Next the claim states, “…determine a second set of bit positions, at each of which more than T/2 copies of the first data have a same bit value different from a bit value at a corresponding bit position of the first copy…”
It is not clear what this limitation is stating.
Again it is not clear how the first set of T/2 and the second set of T/2 copies are different.
Essential elements are missing from the claim.
Last limitation states, “…correct, using the first set of bit positions and the second set of bit positions, an error contained in the first copy.”
There is lack of proper antecedent basis for “the first copy”.
If there are T copies of the first data, then how is determined which one is the first copy?
Essential elements are missing.
Independent claims 8 and 14 are rejected for similar reasons. Although claim 8 has some different limitations, clarity is lacking for similar reasons. Respective dependent claims are rejected at least based on dependency.
Corrections are requested.
It is the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims of the present application, as presented, are not clear. Applicant is encouraged to formulate claim language that clearly defines the novelty of the application. Pertinent prior arts are cited for Applicant’s review.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PTO-892 is attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUJTABA M CHAUDRY whose telephone number is (571)272-3817. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Albert DeCady can be reached at 571-272-3819. 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.
MUJTABA M. CHAUDRY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2112
/MUJTABA M CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights