DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed May 26, 2025.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed December 10, 2024, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4,7,,9,11-16 under §§102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art as applied herein below.
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.
Claim(s) 1,3,5-11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Ballinger” (US PG Pub 2005/0097504) in view of “Massarenti” (US Patent 7,404,186).
Regarding Claim 1, Ballinger teaches:
1. A computer-implemented method for serialization comprising: describing information associated with a class of an object; ((Ballinger ¶19, 203, Fig. 3 teaches a mapping between an object instance and a serial format document; 110, 120, 110, Fig. 1 ¶¶5,15 describing multiple computers in communication executing the described serialization and deserialization methods to transfer objects between them, where the mapping is based on reflection 209, Fig. 2)
sorting field names of the object according to a predetermined order and describing field values corresponding to the field names in a sorted order; (Ballinger e.g. ¶¶18, 22, 35 teach serializing object methods and fields and the associated values from the code of the programming language into a serial format, i.e. an ordered format document, based on the mapping)
and outputting the described information associated with the class and the sorted field values as serialized data. (202, Fig. 2 ¶19 of Ballinger teaches outputting a serial format document describing the source code object in a serial format including field values as serialized data)
wherein the information associated with the class is information of the class necessary for restoring the class via reflection upon deserialization. (205, 203, 209 Fig. 2, ¶¶7, 27 describe storing object shape and name information in an mapping 203 depending on the implementation, where the mapping may provide shape information and serial format information for deserialization).
Ballinger does not teach, but Massarenti teaches:
without recording the field names (See Massarenti, Figs. 3,4,6,8,9 and Col. 4, Ln 41-67 teaching a serialization/deserialization system for object orient programing which creates object signatures Fig. 4 associated with the objects Fig. 3, which include ordered sets of fields with associated values as in Fig. 6. When serialized, the fields are placed without names but instead prefixes and type tags which correspond to the signatures and can be used for deserialization as in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9. See Also Col. 17, Ln 9-17) In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Ballinger and Massarenti as each is directed to serialization/deserialization techniques to and from object-oriented programming language systems and Massarenti’s system of encoding results in “Consuming lower bandwidth resources enables information to be transmitted more efficiently.” (Col. 4, Ln 65-67).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected on the same basis as claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 3, Ballinger teaches:
3. The computer-implemented method for serialization according to claim 1, wherein the describing the field values in the sorted order, in a case where the values of the fields of the object are defined to describe as an array, includes the values of the fields of the object being described as the array according to the sorted order. (Ballinger e.g. ¶¶20,28 describe serializing and deserializing arrays in a serial format such as XML where the values are maintained and restored via deserialization).
Regarding Claim 11, Ballinger teaches:
11. A communication system comprising:
a plurality of communicably connected a first information processing apparatus and a second information processing apparatus, wherein, the first information processing apparatus comprises a first processor; (110 Fig 1) and a first memory storing first instructions for serialization, (120, Fig. 1) the first instructions, when executed by the first processor, causing the first information processing apparatus to perform (110, 120, 110, Fig. 1 ¶¶5,15 describing multiple computers in communication executing the described serialization and deserialization methods to transfer objects between them)
describing information associated with a class of an object; (Ballinger ¶19, 203, Fig. 3 teaches a mapping between an object instance and a serial format document)
sorting field names of the object according to a predetermined order; (Ballinger e.g. ¶¶18, 22, 35 teach serializing object methods and fields and the associated values from the code of the programming language into a serial format, i.e. an ordered format document, based on the mapping)
describing field values corresponding to the field names in a sorted order; (Ballinger e.g. ¶¶18, 22, 35 teach serializing object methods and fields and the associated values from the code of the programming language into a serial format, i.e. an ordered format document, based on the mapping)
and outputting the described information associated with the class and the sorted field values as serialized data, (202, Fig. 2 ¶19)
the second information processing apparatus comprises a second processor; (110, Fig. 1)
and a second memory storing second instructions for a deserialization, (120, Fig. 1) the second instructions, when executed by the second processor, causing the second information processing apparatus : (110, 120, Fig. 1 ¶¶5,15 describing multiple computers in communication executing the described serialization and deserialization methods to transfer objects between them)
to perform: acquiring information associated with the class from the serialized data of the object; (Ballinger ¶19, 203, Fig. 3 teaches a mapping between an object instance and a serial format document)
acquiring field information of the class; (Ballinger e.g. ¶¶18, 22, 35 teach serializing object methods and fields and the associated values from the code of the programming language into a serial format, i.e. an ordered format document, based on the mapping)
acquiring values corresponding to field values of the serialized data of the object as being arranged corresponding to the acquired field names sorted in the predetermined order; (Ballinger e.g. ¶¶18, 22, 35 teach serializing object methods and fields and the associated values from the code of the programming language into a serial format, i.e. an ordered format document, based on the mapping)
restoring the values together with the acquired field names; (Ballinger e.g. ¶¶18, 22, 35 teach deserializing object methods and fields and the associated values to the code of the programming language from a serial format, i.e. an ordered format document, based on the mapping)
and outputting the acquired information associated with the class, the field information, and the field values as a restored object. (201, Fig. 2 ¶19)
wherein the information associated with the class is information of the class necessary for restoring the class via reflection upon deserialization. (205, 203, 209 Fig. 2, ¶¶7, 27 describe storing object shape and name information in an mapping 203 depending on the implementation, where the mapping may provide shape information and serial format information for deserialization).
Ballinger does not teach, but Massarenti teaches:
without recording the field names (See Massarenti, Figs. 3,4,6,8,9 and Col. 4, Ln 41-67 teaching a serialization/deserialization system for object orient programing which creates object signatures Fig. 4 associated with the objects Fig. 3, which include ordered sets of fields with associated values as in Fig. 6. When serialized, the fields are placed without names but instead prefixes and type tags which correspond to the signatures and can be used for deserialization as in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9. See Also Col. 17, Ln 9-17) In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Ballinger and Massarenti as each is directed to serialization/deserialization techniques to and from object-oriented programming language systems and Massarenti’s system of encoding results in “Consuming lower bandwidth resources enables information to be transmitted more efficiently.” (Col. 4, Ln 65-67).
Regarding Claim 5, Ballinger teaches:
5. A computer-implemented method for deserialization method: acquiring information associated with a class from serialized data of an object; ((110, 120, Fig. 1 ¶¶5,15 describing multiple computers in communication executing the described serialization and deserialization methods to transfer objects between them; Ballinger ¶19, 203, Fig. 3 teaches a mapping between an object instance and a serial format document)
acquiring field information of the class; (Ballinger e.g. ¶¶18, 22, 35 teach deserializing object methods and fields and the associated values to the code of the programming language from a serial format, i.e. an ordered format document, based on the mapping)acquiring values corresponding to field values of the serialized data of the object as being arranged corresponding to the acquired field names sorted in a predetermined order, (Ballinger e.g. ¶¶18, 22, 35 teach deserializing object methods and fields and the associated values to the code of the programming language from a serial format, i.e. an ordered format document, based on the mapping)
and restoring the values together with the acquired field names; (Ballinger e.g. ¶¶18, 22, 35 teach deserializing object methods and fields and the associated values to the code of the programming language from a serial format, i.e. an ordered format document, based on the mapping)
and outputting the acquired information associated with the class, the field information, and the field values as a restored object. Ballinger, (201, Fig. 2 ¶19 teaches outputting a restored object from deserializing the XML or other serial format document; e.g. ¶¶18, 22, 35 teach deserializing object methods and fields and the associated values to the code of the programming language from a serial format, i.e. an ordered format document, based on the mapping)
Ballinger does not teach, but Massarenti teaches:
Without relying on recorded field names (See Massarenti, Figs. 3,4,6,8,9 and Col. 4, Ln 41-67 teaching a serialization/deserialization system for object orient programing which creates object signatures Fig. 4 associated with the objects Fig. 3, which include ordered sets of fields with associated values as in Fig. 6. When serialized, the fields are placed without names but instead prefixes and type tags which correspond to the signatures and can be used for deserialization as in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9. Deserialization in Massarenti relying on Object signature as opposed to recorded field names as seen in Fig. 9, Col. Ln 42 to Col. 10 Ln 50 )
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Ballinger and Massarenti as each is directed to serialization/deserialization techniques to and from object-oriented programming language systems and Massarenti’s system of encoding results in “Consuming lower bandwidth resources enables information to be transmitted more efficiently.” (Col. 4, Ln 65-67).
Regarding Claim 6, Ballinger teaches:
6. The computer-implemented method for deserialization according to claim 5, wherein the restoring, in a case where the field values of the object are described as an array, includes the values corresponding to the field values in the serialized data of the object being acquired as being described as the array by sorting the acquired field names in the predetermined order, and restored together with the acquired field names. (Ballinger e.g. ¶¶20,28 describe serializing and deserializing arrays in a serial format such as XML where the values are maintained and restored via deserialization).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected on the same basis as claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 17, Ballinger further teaches:
17. The computer-implemented method for a deserialization according to claim 5, wherein the serialized data is free of the field names, the field names are acquired from the class names by reflection, and the field values are sorted and restored in an original order.(205, 203, Fig. 2, ¶¶7, 27 describe storing object shape and name information in an mapping 203 depending on the implementation, where the mapping may provide shape information and serial format information for deserialization).
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Ballinger” (US PG Pub 2005/0097504) in view of “Massarenti” (US Patent 7,404,186) as applied above and further in view of “Guo” (WIPO Document WO 2016/029788, English language translation provided).
Regarding Claim 2, Ballinger teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not further teach, while Guo teaches: 2. The computer-implemented method for serialization according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the object is an instance of a subclass, field names defined by a superclass are sorted in a predetermined order together with the field names defined by the subclass. (Guo Fig. 1, S101-S103 and provided translation pages 5-6 describe ordering the class of the data object as well as inheritance classes in an order of a byte sequence in serialization which maintains the inheritance relationship)
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Ballinger and Guo as each is directed to serialization systems and Guo teaches a serialization system that allows the integrity of class inheritance relationships to be maintained in serializations. (See e.g. , Guo page 5 of provided translation).
Regarding Claim 4, Guo teaches: 4. The computer-implemented method for serialization according to claim 1, wherein the information associated with the class comprises a hash value obtained by converting at least a class name of the object by a predetermined function. (Guo – provided translation page 7, describes taking a hash of the class name using a 24-bit hash algorithm)
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Ballinger and Guo as each is directed to serialization systems and Guo teaches a serialization system that allows the integrity of class inheritance relationships to be maintained in serializations. (See e.g. , Guo page 5 of provided translation).
Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis as claim 3 above.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected on the same basis as claim 4 above.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Ballinger” (US PG Pub 2005/0097504) in view of “Massarenti” (US Patent 7,404,186) in view of “Pentland” (US PG Pub 2020/0348949).
Regarding Claim 12, Ballinger teaches the limitations of Claim 11 as set forth above, but does not further teach, while Pentland teaches:
12. The communication system according to claim 11, further comprising one or more terminal devices, (142, 144, Fig. 1) wherein the one or more terminal devices and the plurality of communicably connected information processing apparatuses mutually transmit objects with changes, and synchronize by reflecting the changes to received objects. (Pentland Figs. 2-4, ¶¶15, 24, 65 teaches processes for updating object data from serialized data, where the data is exchanged between processes on the same device or on different devices as in Fig. 1, ¶¶114-117)
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Ballinger and Pentland as each is directed to systems of exchange of serialized data objects between computing systems and Pentland recognized “ Better methods are needed for storing and loading objects of different versions using different programming languages with hash chains.” (¶1).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Ballinger” (US PG Pub 2005/0097504) in view of “Massarenti” (US Patent 7,404,186) in view of “Nie” (US PG Pub 2015/0178292).
Regarding Claim 13, Ballinger teaches the limitations of Claim 11 as set forth above, but does not further teach, while Nie teaches: 13. The communication system according to claim 11, wherein the one or more terminal devices is configured to execute a program of a network competition game. (Nie ¶¶3, 82 teaches use of a serialization/deserialization system for exchange of object data in a online game)
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Ballinger and Nie as each is directed to systems of exchange of serialized data objects between computing systems and Nie recognized “online computer games often require large amount of data being exchanged over networks and across devices. To efficiently exchange data, computer systems often implement data serialization and deserialization technologies.” (¶3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in the attached PTO-892 form includes prior art relevant to applicant’s disclosures related to serialization and deserialization methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J BROPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-1642. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-4:30pm.
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, Wei Zhen can be reached on 571-272-3708. 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.
MJB
11/14/2025
/MATTHEW J BROPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191