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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/6/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-30 are pending of which claims 1, 11, and 21 are in independent form.
Claims 1-30 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, abstract idea.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-30 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. US 12047360 B2; claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. US 12132712 B2; claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. US 12169476 B2; claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. US 12244574 B2; claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. US 12386785 B2; claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. US 12450199 B2; claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. US 12461895 B2; claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. US 12505072 B2; claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. US 12517867 B2; and claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. US 12547591 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) encoding/decoding system mapping file segments to dictionary.
With respect to step 1 of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Independent claims 1, is directed to a method, which is process.
Independent claims 11 are directed to a “computerprogram product…one a non-transitory computer readable medium”, which is statutory.
Independent claims 21, is directed to a system, including processors and memories.
Independent All other claims depend on claims 1, 11, and 21. As such, claims 1-30 are directed to a statutory category.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 21:
With respect to step 2A, prong one (Judicial Exception), it is noted that the independent claims recite an abstract idea falling within the Mental Health grouping of abstract ideas. Specifically, the following limitations recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claims recite the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
Processing an unencoded data file to identify file segments
Mapping file segments to portions of a dictionary
Using a dictionary defined by binary sequences of a given bit length
Representing segments using: a starting location (bit offset), a length (number of bits)
Generating an encoded file based on the mappings
storing the encoded files.
The claims are directed to: encoding data by mapping segments to predefined representation based on bit positions and length.
The claims fall within:
Mental Process (Segmenting data, matching segments to representation, selecting offsets and lengths)
Mathematical Algorithm/Concept (binary sequences, bit-length representation)
With respect to step 2A, Prong Two (Particular Application), the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following limitations are considered “additional elements” and explanation will be given as to why these “additional elements” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims recite the use of:
A computing device
Processing of data files
A dictionary file
Generating and storing encoded data.
The processor merely performs the abstract encoding steps. The is simply used for lookup. The bit-length and combination definition describe how data represented, not an improvement.
The claims do not:
Improve computer memory architecture
Improve compression algorithm at a technical level (no new encoding/generic mapping)
Improve data transmission efficiency in a specific technical way
Define a new data structure with functional improvements.
There are no improvements to computer functionality or any specific technical solution to a computer centric problem. Instead, the computer and semiconductor environment are used as tools to execute abstract mathematical encoding, data analysis, and decision making, with the result merely being applied in a generic manner.
There is no recitation of, a new data structure that changes computer operation, improved network functioning, an unconventional indexing technique, a specific hardware solution.
Instead, the claims recite conventional and generic computer functions performed in a routine manner, which does not amount to a practical application.
With respect to Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited components are merely generic computer/database elements performing their routine, well-understood, and conventional functions. See Alive, MPEP 2016.05(d).
The steps mentioned in the independent claims are merely generic elements performing an abstract process. Courts have consistently helped such high-level information management operations are conventional.
The claims recite only functional, result oriented language (“detecting”, “propagating”, “transferring”,…), without specifying any technical mechanism for performing these operations in a non-conventional manner.
Considering claims as a whole, the ordered combination of elements also reflects nothing more than the typical workflow of distributed systems, and therefore DOES NOT add “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Such generic, high‐level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer‐based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent‐eligible, as noted at pg.74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359‐60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093‐94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257‐1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claimpatent‐eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".).
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well‐understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.0S(d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec ... ; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC ... ; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc ... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc ... ;
• Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life ... ;
• Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp ... ; Ultramercial ... ;
• Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc ... ;
• Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank ... ; and
• A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent
• Corp. v. Active Network, Inc. ...
. . . Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the findings for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 2, 6, 8, 12, 16, 18, 22, 26, and 28 (Manipulating od Encoded Data Based on Mappings),
The claim recites:
Receiving a request to manipulate data (claims, 2, 12, 22)
Processing the encoded data using mappings and dictionary to generate modified encoded data; performing processing in:
Byte-wise fashion (claims 6, 16, 26)
Bit-wise fashion (claim 8, 18, 28)
This merely post processing of encoded data, which is: data manipulation/transformation. “Byte-wise” and “bit-wise” processing are not improvement to computer functionality. There are no changes to: how mappings are generated, how encoding works technically, and improvement is processing architecture. These fall under: Mental Process (applying rules to modify data), and Data Manipulation.
This does not change the nature of the abstract idea. It does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea, such as improving computer functionality, data structure, or processing architecture.
There is no practical application, and no inventive step, the claims are still considered abstract.
Regarding claims 3, 13, and 23 (Types of Encoding Operations),
The claim recites:
Performing homomorphic/heteromorphic encoding
This merely specifies types of encoding operations. There are no changes to: how encoding is improved, cryptographic and encoding Mechanism. These fall under: Mathematical Algorithm/Concept (encoding schemes).
This does not change the nature of the abstract idea. It does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea, such as improving computer functionality, data structure, or processing architecture.
There is no practical application, and no inventive step, the claims are still considered abstract.
Regarding claims 4, 9, 10, 14, 19, 20, 24, 29, and 30 (Data Type of Encoding File),
The claim recites:
Encoded data includes:
Compressed data, encrypted data (claims 4, 14, 24)
Standard data storage file (claim 9, 19, 29)
Structured data storage file (claim 10, 20, 30)
This merely defined output formats/types of data. These do not: improve compression techniques, improve encryption mechanism, improve storage systems. These fall under: Data Representation/Post-Solution Activity.
This does not change the nature of the abstract idea. It does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea, such as improving computer functionality, data structure, or processing architecture.
There is no practical application, and no inventive step, the claims are still considered abstract.
Regarding claims 5, 7, 15, 17, 25, and 27 (Dictionary Structure Variations),
The claim recites:
Dictionary includes:
Discrete entries (claims 5, 15, 25)
Concatenated entries (claims 7, 17, 27)
This merely defined organization of data within a dictionary. These do not: improve lookup efficiency, introduce a new data structure mechanism. These fall under: Mental Process (classification).
This does not change the nature of the abstract idea. It does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea, such as improving computer functionality, data structure, or processing architecture.
There is no practical application, and no inventive step, the claims are still considered abstract.
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) 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archbold; John et al. (US 20080204284 A1) [Archbold] in view of Hassan; Amer Aref et al. (US 20210375008 A1) [Hassan] in view Orchard; David Arthur et al. (US 20130019084 A1) [Orchard].
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 21, Archbold teaches, a computer-implemented method, executed on a computing device comprising: processing an unencoded data file to identify a plurality of file segments (Archbold [0015]: "In another aspect, the embodiments of the present invention provide a method for segmenting the encoded data into blocks to enable the encoded data to be manipulated. This segmentation method allows data blocks to completely contain the encoded data, partially contain the encoded data, or represent data that has been added to another block");
mapping each of the plurality of file segments to a portion of a dictionary file (Archbold [0019]: The encoder has logic for reading data from the input file, parsing the input file into a series of data items, comparing the series of data items against a static dictionary comprising at least mappings between terminal sequence pointers and representations of data items wherein each mapping has an associated length, wherein the associated length for a mapping being the length of the data item pointed to by its terminal sequence pointer wherein the terminal sequence pointers are represented by a number of bits that is independent of the particular data items in the input file, the static dictionary being static wherein the static dictionary is usable to provide a mapping between a terminal sequence pointer and its corresponding representation of data item independent of mapping of other data items and the like)
generating a plurality of mappings, wherein each of the plurality of mappings includes a starting location as a bit-wise offset within the dictionary file and a length as a number of bits within the dictionary file beginning from the starting location (Archbold [0019]: The encoder has logic for reading data from the input file, parsing the input file into a series of data items, comparing the series of data items against a static dictionary comprising at least mappings between terminal sequence pointers and representations of data items wherein each mapping has an associated length, wherein the associated length for a mapping being the length of the data item pointed to by its terminal sequence pointer wherein the terminal sequence pointers are represented by a number of bits that is independent of the particular data items in the input file, the static dictionary being static wherein the static dictionary is usable to provide a mapping between a terminal sequence pointer and its corresponding representation of data item independent of mapping of other data items and the like),
thus generating a related encoded data file based, at least in part, upon the plurality of mappings (Archbold [0061 - 0062]: Through this hierarchical structure, a one to one relationship is maintained between data in the encoded data set and the original data set, thus retaining the ability to seek, search, edit and transmit the encoded data. When data is not in the terminal sequence dictionary it is encoded as exception data. The encoding system in accordance with the embodiments of the present invention is independent of the data source and can be file, stream or network based.),
wherein mapping each of the plurality of file segments to the portion of the dictionary file to generate the plurality of mapping includes mapping each of the plurality of file segments to a plurality of bits within the dictionary file using the starting location and length (Archbold [Abstract]: "The encoding method includes the parsing of the input file into a series of data items, the data items having an order and collectively corresponding to the input file. The encoding method compares the series of data items against a static dictionary having at least mappings between terminal sequence pointers and representations of data items. Each mapping has an associated length, the associated length for a mapping being the length of the data item pointed to by its terminal sequence pointer wherein the terminal sequence pointers are represented by a number of bits that is independent of the particular data items in the input file, the static dictionary being static such that the static dictionary is usable to provide a mapping between a terminal sequence pointer and its corresponding representation of data item independent of mapping of other data items."); and
Archbold does not clearly teach, storing the related encoded data file at a first location. However, Hassan [0128] teaches, "Example 11 is a computing device for encoding data, the device comprising: a processor; a memory, storing instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: receiving a first data set corresponding to an image; identifying an encoding dictionary, the encoding dictionary defining a plurality of different geometric shapes, each shape of the plurality of geometric shapes having a default property, the default property a property of a default construction of the shape; mapping a feature in the image to a set of one or more geometric shapes in the encoding dictionary based upon image data of the image and attribute data of the set of one or more geometric shapes in the encoding dictionary, the attribute data comprising image data of the set of geometric shapes").
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Archbold et al. to the Hassan's system by adding the feature of data storage. The references (Archbold and Hassan) teach features that are analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as databases. Ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do SO to provide Archbold's system with enhanced data. (See Hassan [Abstract], [0063], [0066-0067], [0128]). One of the biggest advantages of network machine learning database algorithms is their ability to improve over time. Machine learning technology typically improves efficiency and accuracy thanks to the ever-increasing amounts of data that are processed.
However, neither Archbold or Hassan explicitly facilitates wherein the dictionary file includes a binary sequence of all possible combinations of a number having a defined bit length.
Orchard discloses, wherein the dictionary file includes a binary sequence of all possible combinations of a number having a defined bit length (binary strings having defined bit lengths ¶ [0020], number of possible terms …is 2n possible sequences ¶ [0025], allows all possible input data strings of length n to be sampled ¶ [0075], searching for any binary string of a given length in a pre-defined dictionary ¶ [0018]. These disclosures from Orchard clearly indicates that the dictionary necessarily includes binary sequences corresponding to all possible combination of a number having a defined bit length).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Orchard’s system would have allowed Archbold and Hassan to facilitate wherein the dictionary file includes a binary sequence of all possible combinations of a number having a defined bit length. The motivation to combine is apparent in the Archbold and Hassan’s reference, because there is a need to improve a processor arranging data mapping to locations in a memory.
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 22, the combination of Archbold, Hassan and Orchard disclose, further comprising:
receiving a request to manipulate the unencoded data file; and processing the related encoded data file based, at least in part, upon the plurality of mappings and the dictionary file to generate a modified encoded data file that represents the requested manipulations of the unencoded data file (Archbold [0086]: "The embodiments of the present invention allow for manipulation of data while it is encoded without requiring full decoding or decoding up to a location where data is to be manipulated, i.e., read or edited. The sequence dictionaries used to enable these operations can be stored with the encoded data or separate from the encoded data to provide storage and transmission efficiency and other advantages. In some cases, sequence dictionaries can be substituted to, for example, change the data in ways determined by changes to the sequence dictionaries. For example, encoded data can be translated or reformatted by changing a sequence dictionary much like an image's colors can be changed by changing the palette of an image file. As explained herein, however, the substitutions described herein are much more versatile").
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 23, the combination of Archbold, Hassan and Orchard disclose, wherein processing the related encoded data file based, at least in part, upon the plurality of mappings and the dictionary file to generate a modified encoded data file that represents the requested manipulations of the unencoded data file includes one or more of: performing a homomorphic encoding operation; and performing a heteromorphic encoding operation (Archbold [0109-0111]: "To minimize the amount of time required to close the dataset, editing can additionally use an inserted, deleted or modified block mechanism. It should be noted that the DMT described above and the use of stream pointers provides for various levels of security. The stream pointers can address both the so-called weak security aspects and the so-called strong security aspects. Weak security features include data security aspects related to the mathematical and/or logical manipulations, whereas strong security refers to the encryption aspects.").
Regarding claims 4, 14, and 24, the combination of Archbold, Hassan and Orchard disclose, wherein the related encoded data file includes one or more of: a related compressed data file; and a related encrypted data file (Archbold [0025]: "In systems wherein data is encoded as provided above, searching and editing can be provided without requiring decompression. For example, given a compressed file and a sequence of quantum units (e.g., bits, bytes, pixels, symbols, characters, etc.), the sequence can be mapped to a corresponding set of bits (or other storage unit) that represent the sequence in the compressed file. Thus, a compressed file can be searched for the existence of the sequence without requiring decompression by scanning the compressed file for the existence of the corresponding set.").
Regarding claims 5, 15 and 25, the combination of Archbold, Hassan and Orchard disclose, wherein the dictionary file includes a plurality of discrete entries (Hassan [0077]: "At operation 530, the geometric encoding system may mapping a feature in the image to a set of one or more geometric shapes in the encoding dictionary based upon image data of the image and attribute data of the set of one or more geometric shapes in the encoding dictionary, the attribute data comprising image data of the set of geometric shapes. For example, by comparing image data (e.g., pixel values or discrete Fourier transform data) of the image and image data of the geometric shapes in the encoding dictionary. The image data of the geometric shapes in the encoding dictionary may be a pixel value representation of one or more geometric shapes.").
Regarding claims 6, 16, and 26, the combination of Archbold, Hassan and Orchard disclose, wherein processing the related encoded data file based, at least in part, upon the plurality of mappings and the dictionary file to generate a modified encoded data file that represents the requested manipulations of the unencoded data file includes: processing the related encoded data file, in a byte-wise fashion, based upon the plurality of mappings and the dictionary file to generate a modified encoded data file that represents the requested manipulations of the unencoded data file (Archbold [0025] "In systems wherein data is encoded as provided above, searching and editing can be provided without requiring decompression. For example, given a compressed file and a sequence of quantum units (e.g., bits, bytes, pixels, symbols, characters, etc.), the sequence can be mapped to a corresponding set ofbits (or other storage unit) that represent the sequence in the compressed file. Thus, a compressed file can be searched for the existence of the sequence without requiring decompression by scanning the compressed file for the existence of the corresponding set.").
Regarding claims 7, 17 and 27, the combination of Archbold, Hassan and Orchard disclose, wherein the dictionary file includes a plurality of concatenated entries (Hassan [0013]: "As another example of how data is represented, one or more images may be encoded as a series of numerical values representing pixel intensities of pixels in a grid. Additional transformations may be applied such that the series of values is compressed or otherwise represented differently. For example, a discrete Fourier transformation of the pixel intensity values may encode the image as a set of values to represent the image in a frequency domain. In other examples, images may be encoded as a sequence of one or more vectors that represent lines or polygons of the image.").
Regarding claims 8, 18, and 28, the combination of Archbold, Hassan and Orchard disclose, wherein processing the related encoded data file based, at least in part, upon the plurality of mappings and the dictionary file to generate a modified encoded data file that represents the requested manipulations of the unencoded data file includes: processing the related encoded data file, in a bit-wise fashion, based upon the plurality of mappings and the dictionary file to generate a modified encoded data file that represents the requested manipulations of the unencoded data file (Archbold [0077]: FIG. 7 is an exemplary block diagram of an MDF data structure, in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. FIG. 7 shows the relationship between the encoded data 702 having one or more location identifiers, the one or more tables of location identifiers 704-708 having one or more indices, and the one of more dictionaries 710-712 having one or more dictionary items. FIG. 7 also shows how one or more pointers 703.sub.1-N point from the one or more location identifiers in the encoded data 702 to the one or more indices in the first table of location identifiers. Likewise, various one or more pointers point from tables of location identifiers and the one or more dictionaries. Using this data structure the original data are encoded. The data is miniaturized using a specific terminal sequence dictionary or set of sequence dictionaries. Data is recovered in the context of those dictionaries. The dictionaries themselves are learned in a specific data context, and dictionary elements include both terminal sequence pointers and sequence pointers. Accordingly, the encoded bit size of the MDF data is set by the total number of terminal sequence pointers.).
Regarding claims 9, 19, and 29, the combination of Archbold, Hassan and Orchard disclose, wherein the related encoded data file includes a standard data storage file (Archbold [0085]: "In systems wherein data is encoded as provided above, searching and editing can be provided without requiring decompression. For example, given a compressed file and a sequence of quantum units (e.g., bits, bytes, pixels, symbols, characters, etc.), the sequence can be mapped to a corresponding set of bits (or other storage unit) that represent the sequence in the compressed file. Thus, a compressed file can be searched for the existence of the sequence without requiring decompression by scanning the compressed file for the existence of the corresponding set.").
Regarding claims 10, 20, and 30, the combination of Archbold, Hassan and Orchard disclose, wherein the related encoded data file includes a structured data storage file (Archbold [0025]: "In systems wherein data is encoded as provided above, searching and editing can be provided without requiring decompression. For example, given a compressed file and a sequence of quantum units (e.g., bits, bytes, pixels, symbols, characters, etc.), the sequence can be mapped to a corresponding set of bits (or other storage unit) that represent the sequence in the compressed file. Thus, a compressed file can be searched for the existence of the sequence without requiring decompression by scanning the compressed file for the existence of the corresponding set.").
Conclusion
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD S ROSTAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1980. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri From 9 a.m. to 5 p.m..
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
4/16/2026
/MOHAMMAD S ROSTAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights