CTFR 18/960,783 CTFR 79572 DETAILED ACTION Application filed 5/20/2026 has been considered. 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are pending. Prior rejections are maintained in view amendments and remarks. The amendments/remarks do not clarify the claims. Application is pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-20 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: PNG media_image1.png 217 714 media_image1.png Greyscale The claim states, “…encoding data, for a plurality of tracks of tape of a tape drive, by using an error correction code (ECC), wherein the ECC scheme comprises a single Reed-Solomon code with a code word of 10 or more bits… ” This limitation lacks clarity and does not alter the claim scope from the previous version. A codeword of at least 10 bits is functionally equivalent to a codeword of 10 or more bits. Is the single RS code applied to each separate data in parallel to generate code words and then those codewords are interleaved? Or is the single RS code applied to code word symbols that have been encoded with RS ECC? Are all the code word symbols at least 10 bits or 10 bits or more in total? Is each code word after encoding with ECC at least 10 bits? Essential elements are missing from the claim. Independent claims 8 and 15 are rejected for similar reasons. Respective dependent claims are rejected for similar reasons. Corrections are requested. It is the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims of the present application, as presented , are not clear. Applicants are encouraged to formulate claim language that clearly defines the novelty of the application. Pertinent prior arts have been cited for Applicants’ review. Specifically, Hillman USPN 7,475,326 teaches (i.e., Figs. 2 and 7 below) to encode data with RS code to generate codewords at least 10 bits or more and then interleave. However it is not clear if this is what the claims are stating. PNG media_image2.png 455 775 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 512 784 media_image3.png Greyscale Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. 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 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 Application/Control Number: 18/960,783 Page 2 Art Unit: 2112 Application/Control Number: 18/960,783 Page 3 Art Unit: 2112 Application/Control Number: 18/960,783 Page 4 Art Unit: 2112
Prosecution Insights