DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-20, 25, 29, 35 and 39 are canceled.
Claims 21-24, 26-28, 30-34, 36-38 and 40 are presented for examination.
The claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. “Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969)” (MPEP p 2100-8, c 2, I 45-48; p 2100-9, c 1, l 1-4). The Examiner has full latitude to interpret each claim in the broadest reasonable sense. The Examiner will reference prior art using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/amendment was filed on 29 December 2025.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. However, the Examiner welcomes any suggestion(s) Applicant may have on moving prosecution forward. The Examiner’s contact information is in the Conclusion of this office action.
Applicant argues:
Amended claim 21 requires, in part, "encode, by the one or more processors, the scaled data values to generate encoded data values that are a binary representation of the scaled data value." The Examiner suggests that Choudhary discloses encoding data values but acknowledges that Choudhary does not disclose "scaling the data values using an engineering unit range and generating a binary representation of the scaled data value." The Examiner further suggests that Miceli cures this deficiency of Choudhary. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Miceli discloses displaying arbitrarily magnified high-resolution images using
compressed domain processing teaches scaling images to adjust image size or resolution for display or storage purposes. However, the image scaling in Miceli concerns manipulation of visual data (image data), not encoding numerical data values. Nothing in the image-scaling reference suggests applying its techniques to scale engineering-unit-based data values as part of an encoding process, and the presence of separate teachings of encoding in Choudhary and scaling in Miceli does not, without more, suggest encoding by scaling data values as required by claim 21.
In response, the Examiner submits:
The independent claims recite “scale, by the one or more processors, the data values using an engineering unit range” and “encode, by the one or more processors, the scaled data values to generate encoded data values that are a binary representation of the scaled data value”.
The independent claims do not recite limitation(s) that require encoding of numerical data values. The independent claims also do not recite limitation(s) that require, for example, “data values that are not visual data (or image data)”.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues:
The Examiner further acknowledges that Choudhary fails to disclose "decod[ing] the
encoded data value by reconstructing the scaled data value based on the binary representation, converting the scaled data value to the data value using the engineering unit range from the first metadata instance, and interpreting the data value based on the data type from the second metadata instance," as required by claim 21, but suggests that Miceli cures this deficiency. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Miceli describes selecting, scaling, cropping, and displaying pre-scaled images to
improve rendering efficiency and user interaction. In contrast, the claimed limitation requires decoding an encoded data value by (i) reconstructing a scaled numerical data value from a binary representation, (ii) converting that scaled data value back to an original data value using an engineering unit range from a first metadata instance, and (iii) interpreting the data value based on a data type from a second metadata instance. Nothing in the Miceli describes decoding encoded numerical data, reconstructing scaled data values from binary representations, or converting values using engineering unit ranges or metadata. The scaling operations in Miceli operate exclusively on pixel-based image data for display purposes and do not involve
engineering units, metadata-driven interpretation, or reversible encoding/decoding of numerical data values. Accordingly, the Miceli addresses a fundamentally different technical problem and does not disclose, teach, or suggest a decoding process.
Therefore, Applicant submits that the combination of Choudhary and Miceli fails to
disclose each and every feature of independent claim 21 and 31. Therefore, independent claims 21 and 31 are not unpatentable in view of Choudhary and Miceli under§ 103(a). Therefore, Dependent claims 22, 28, 32, and 38 are not unpatentable in view of Choudhary and Miceli under§ 103(a), among other reasons, by virtue of their respective dependencies from independent claims 21 and 31. Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw the rejections of claims 21-22, 28, 31-32, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
In response, the Examiner submits:
The independent claims do not recite limitation(s) that require encoding of “reconstructing … scaled numerical data value from a binary representation” or “decoding encoded numerical data” or “encoding/decoding of numerical data values” that are reversible.
The independent claims also do no recite limitation(s) that require data that is not pixel-based image data.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant can, however, amend the instant claims to require, for example, “encoding/decoding of numerical data values” that are reversible.
Further, it is not true that Miceli fails to disclose, teach or suggest a decoding process because Miceli teaches a decompression process that reads on a decoding process (Miceli: at least ¶0037; “the initial image 160 is decompressed into memory and a copy of the full size, i.e., 100%, image is saved onto disk 150”).
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 21-24, 26-28, 30-34, 36-38 and 40 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.
Claims 21 and 31 recite “encode, by the one or more processors, the scaled data values to generate encoded data values that are a binary representation of the scaled data value”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the scaled data value” in the amended claim.
Claim 31 also recites “decoding the encoded data value by reconstructing the scaled data value based on the binary representation, converting the scaled data value to the data value …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the encoded data value” and “the scaled data value” in the amended claim.
Claims 22-24, 26-28, 30, 32-34, 36-38 and 40 depend from claims 21 and 31, and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for the same reason(s).
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-22, 28, 31-32 and 38 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 9,210,056 by Choudhary et al. (“Choudhary”) in view of US PGPUB 2004/0001636 by Miceli (“Miceli”).
As to Claim 21, Choudhary teaches a historian system for encrypting data comprising:
one or more computers comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer readable media, the one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions stored thereon that when executed cause the server to: receive, by the one or more processors, data values from a set of one or more data collector devices (Choudhary: at least Col. 167 Lines 20-23; “raw data, which can include unstructured data, machine data, performance measurements or other time-series data, such as data obtained from weblogs, syslogs, or sensor readings”; Col. 168 Lines 16-18 also discloses “forwarders 7101 that collect data obtained from a variety of different data sources 7105”; Col. 87 Lines 83-67 further disclose “the sources may produce the machine data at various frequencies (e.g., every minute, every 10 minutes, every 30 minutes, etc.) and/or the machine data may be collected at various frequencies (e.g., every minute, every 10 minutes, every 30 minutes, etc.)”; Col. 166 Line 65 – Col. 167 Line 2 also discloses “sources from which an event may be derived include, but are not limited to: web servers … mobile devices, and sensors”);
encode, by the one or more processors, the data values to generate encoded data values (Choudhary: at least Col. 169 Lines 10-11; “indexer subsequently associates the determined timestamp with each event at block 7204”; Col. 169 Lines 49-51 further disclose “bucket containing the most recent events can be stored as flash memory instead of on hard disk”; note: encoded with timestamps that are metadata; data stored on hard disk or in flash memory are encoded as binary values);
store, by the one or more processors, the encoded data values and a tag name in a historian server within the historian system (Choudhary: at least Col. 169 Lines 10-11 & 24-30; “indexer subsequently associates the determined timestamp with each event at block 7204” and “the indexer includes the identified keywords in an index, which associates each stored keyword with references to events containing that keyword (or to locations within events where that keyword is located). When an indexer subsequently receives a keyword-based query, the indexer can access the keyword index to quickly identify events containing the keyword”; Col. 60 Lines 49-50 also disclose “the entity definition 1751A satisfies the filter criterion “dest=192.*”” and Fig. 17I shows “… search dest=192.*” under New Search);
store, by the one or more processors, tag metadata instances associated with the encoded data values (Choudhary: at least Col. 169 Lines 12 & 42-45; “storing the timestamp as metadata for each event”, “wherein a timestamp can be stored with each event to facilitate searching for events based on a time range” and “stored events are organized into a plurality of buckets, wherein each bucket stores events associated with a specific time range”; Col. 169 Line 47-49 further disclose “timestamps that may have a higher likelihood of being accessed to be stored in faster memory to facilitate faster retrieval”) in a metadata server that is separate from the historian server within the historian system (Choudhary: at least Col. 168 Lines 21-24; “forwarders and indexers can comprise separate computer systems in a data center, or may alternatively comprise separate processes executing on various computer systems in a data center”), the tag metadata instances include at least a second tag metadata instance comprising an indicator of a data type for the data values (Choudhary: at least Col. 160 Lines 4-5; “data type of the selected field from fields 6106”), each of the tag metadata instances having a different tag identification (ID), all the metadata instances having different tag IDs being associated with the same tag name (Choudhary: at least Col. 39 lines 23-29; “if an alias component stores an element name of “IP2” and multiple element values “2.2.2.2” and “5.5.5.5,” and when the element name-element value pair is used for a search query, the search query uses the values disjunctively”);
receive, by the one or more processors, a user request for the data values (Choudhary: at least Col. 11 Lines 12-13; “processing search requests that uses extraction rules for field values”; Col. 169 Lines 42-43 also disclose “a timestamp can be stored with each event to facilitate searching for events based on a time range” and “time-based searches”; Col. 170 Lines 61-63 further disclose “search query 7402 is received at a query processor 7404. Query processor 7404 includes various mechanisms for processing a query”);
retrieve, by the one or more processors, the encoded data values based on the tag name from the historian server (Choudhary: at least Col. 169 Lines 28-30 & 46-47; “when an indexer subsequently receives a keyword-based query, the indexer can access the keyword index to quickly identify events containing the keyword” and “time-based search”), and the tag metadata instances from the metadata server based on the tag IDs associated with the tag name (Choudhary: at least Col. 39 lines 25-29; “when the element name-element value pair is used for a search query, the search query uses the values disjunctively”); and
interpreting the data values based on the data type from the second metadata instances (Choudhary: at least Col. 159 Lines 66-67 & Col. 160 lines 6-10; “available statistical functions include average, count, distinct count, maximum, minimum, sum, standard deviation, median or other operations” and “when the selected field has a numerical data type, any of the above listed statistical functions may be available. When the selected field has a string data type, however, the only available operations may be count and distinct count, as the arithmetic operations cannot be performed on a string data type”).
Choudhary does not explicitly disclose, but Miceli discloses said scale, by the one or more processors, the data values using an engineering unit range (Miceli: at least ¶0046; “pre-scaled image 206 having a 25% scale is selected since the 25% scale version is the closest in scale size without being less than the display scale of display monitor 168. 25% scale version 206 is then scaled down to 15%, if this scale is capable of being attained in the compressed domain”);
encode, by the one or more processors, the scaled data values to generate encoded data values that are a binary representation of the scaled data value (Miceli: at least ¶0046; “pre-scaled image 206 having a 25% scale is selected since the 25% scale version is the closest in scale size without being less than the display scale of display monitor 168. 25% scale version 206 is then scaled down to 15%, if this scale is capable of being attained in the compressed domain”; note: encoded data stored as binary representation or values of 0s and 1s); said tag metadata instances include at least a first tag metadata instance comprising the engineering unit range (Miceli: at least ¶0046; “pre-scaled image 206 having a 25% scale” and 25% scale version 206 is then scaled down to 15%); and decode the encoded data values by reconstructing the scaled data values based on the binary representation, converting the scaled data values to the data value using the engineering unit range from the first metadata instances (Miceli: at least ¶0037; “the initial image 160 is decompressed into memory and a copy of the full size, i.e., 100%, image is saved onto disk 150”; ¶0046 further discloses “the scaling operation to reduce the magnification from 16% to 15% is performed in the decompressed domain”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Miceli’s features of said scale, by the one or more processors, the data values using an engineering unit range (Miceli: at least ¶0046);
encode, by the one or more processors, the scaled data values to generate encoded data values that are a binary representation of the scaled data value (Miceli: at least ¶0046); said tag metadata instances include at least a first tag metadata instance comprising the engineering unit range (Miceli: at least ¶0046); and decode the encoded data values by reconstructing the scaled data values based on the binary representation, converting the scaled data values to the data value using the engineering unit range from the first metadata instances (Miceli: at least ¶¶0037, 0046) with Choudhary’s system.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to manipulate “the images in the compressed domain to reduce memory and disk capacity requirements” (Miceli: at least ¶0002).
As to Claim 22, Choudhary and Miceli teach the system of claim 21, wherein the metadata server is configured to store the tag metadata instances in a form of tag objects comprising tag properties comprising at least one of the tag name, a tag type, a value range, the tag IDs, and storage type (Choudhary: at least Col. 169 Lines 10-11; “indexer subsequently associates the determined timestamp with each event at block 7204, for example by storing the timestamp as metadata for each event”; Col. 25 Lines 19-20 also disclose “each event has metadata associated with the respective event”; Col. 51 Lines 34-36 further disclose “associated pair of data items may include a key representing a metadata field name and a value representing a metadata value for the metadata field”; note: timestamp or fields with names as tags with names).
Claim 32 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 22, and is similarly rejected.
As to Claim 28, Choudhary and Miceli teach the system of claim 21, wherein the system is configured to return the data values in response to the request by the user (Choudhary: at least Col. 169 Lines 56-59; “each indexer returns partial responses for a subset of events to a search head that combines the results to produce an answer for the query”).
Claim 38 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 28, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 23-24 and 33-34 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 9,210,056 by Choudhary et al. (“Choudhary”) in view of US PGPUB 2004/0001636 by Miceli (“Miceli”), and further in view of US Patent 6,202,099 by Gillies et al. (“Gillies”).
As to Claim 23, Choudhary and Miceli teach the system of claim 21.
Choudhary and Miceli do not explicitly disclose, but Gillies discloses wherein the data values are encoded prior to being stored (Gillies: at least Col. 10 Lines 62-64; “messages exchanged … can be encrypted and decrypted with metadata”; Col. 2 Lines 39-42 also disclose “sub-application receives or "subscribes" to a message” and “received message is in the format expected by the sub-application so that the sub-application will be able to successfully decipher the message” note: messages would be in encrypted form before receiving by receiver).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Gillies’ features of wherein the data values are encoded prior to being stored (Gillies: at least Col. 10 Lines 62-64, Col. 2 Lines 39-42) with the system disclosed by Choudhary and Miceli.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to perform data validation and ensure data security (Gillies: at least Col. 2 Lines 42, Col. 10 Lines 56-57).
Claim 33 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 23, and is similarly rejected.
As to Claim 24, Choudhary, Miceli and Gillies teach the system of claim 23.
Gillies further discloses wherein the tag metadata instances are necessary to decode the encoded data values (Gillies: at least Col. 10 Lines 63-64; “… decrypted with metadata”).
Claim 34 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 24, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 26 and 36 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 9,210,056 by Choudhary et al. (“Choudhary”) in view of US PGPUB 2004/0001636 by Miceli (“Miceli”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2001/0024503 by Hatakeyama et al. (“Hatakeyama”).
As to Claim 26, Choudhary and Miceli teach the system of claim 21.
Choudhary and Miceli do not explicitly disclose, but Hatakeyama discloses wherein the scaled data values cannot be interpreted correctly without being decoded using the tag metadata instances (Hatakeyama: at least ¶0043; “security module 9 sends a necessary decryption key to the I/O processor 7”; ¶0052 further discloses “fetches the decryption key (step S102). Then, the I/O processor 7 decrypts the encrypted part using this decryption key and decompresses the compressed part of decrypted information”; note: the compressed or scaled part of the decrypted or decoded data that is result of using decryption metadata).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hatakeyama’s feature of wherein the scaled data values cannot be interpreted correctly without being decoded using the tag metadata instances (Hatakeyama: at least ¶0043) with system disclosed by Choudhary and Miceli.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to address the issues of “reduction in the data capacity” and “provision of security” (Hatakeyama: at least ¶0007).
Claim 36 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 26, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 27 and 37 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 9,210,056 by Choudhary et al. (“Choudhary”) in view of US PGPUB 2004/0001636 by Miceli (“Miceli”), and further in view of US Patent 5,524,241 by Ghoneimy et al. (“Ghoneimy”).
As to Claim 27, Choudhary and Miceli teach the system of claim 21.
Choudhary and Miceli do not explicitly disclose, but Ghoneimy discloses, wherein the second tag metadata instance indicates whether the data type is a floating point value or an integer value (Ghoneimy: at least Col. 8 Lines 29-32; “Data Type value 326, indicating whether the data in this field is an integer, floating point number, string, and so on”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ghoneimy’s feature of wherein the second tag metadata instance indicates whether the data type is a floating point value or an integer value (Ghoneimy: at least Col. 8 Lines 29-32) with the system disclosed by Choudhary and Miceli.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to determine the data type and size of corresponding data values (Ghoneimy: at least Col. 10 Lines 39-40; “look up in the Event Type Table 320 the data type and size of each data field in the output events”).
Claim 37 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 27, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 30 and 40 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 9,210,056 by Choudhary et al. (“Choudhary”) in view of US PGPUB 2004/0001636 by Miceli (“Miceli”), and further in view of US Patent 6,400,293 by Richardson.
As to Claim 30, Choudhary and Miceli teach the system of claim 21.
Choudhary and Miceli do not explicitly disclose, but Richardson discloses wherein the scaled data value stored on the historian server cannot be interpreted correctly without knowing the engineering unit range stored on the metadata server (Richardson: at least Col. 11 Lines 5-8; “processes that utilize a variable compression ratio may require a log file of the compression ratio used for each digit series, for use during decompression”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Richardson’s feature of wherein the scaled data value stored on the historian server cannot be interpreted correctly without knowing the engineering unit range stored on the metadata server (Richardson: at least Col. 11 Lines 5-8) with the system disclosed by Choudhary and Miceli.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to perform decompression adapted to handle data with variable compression ratio (Richardson: at least Col. 11 Lines 5-8).
Claim 40 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 30, and is similarly rejected.
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 Huen Wong whose telephone number is (571) 270-3426. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (10:30AM EST - 6:30PM EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached on (571) 272-4058. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300 for regular communications and after final communications.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from thePatent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information forpublished 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. Shouldyou have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the ElectronicBusiness Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from aUSPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated informationsystem, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H .W./
Examiner, AU 2168
25 February 2026
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168