DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to communication filed on 01/07/2026. Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 8, and 11 have been amended. Claims 3, 10, 13, 16-18 and 21 have been canceled. Claims 24-26 have been added. Claims 1 -2, 4-9, 11-12, 14-15, 19-20 and 22-26 are pending on this application.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 01/07/202 failed to response to double patent rejections in previous office action mailed on 09/04/2026. Therefore, double patent rejections are sustained in this office action.
3. Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2025 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Under remark, With respect to claims 1 and 11 applicant argued: the references of record fail to teach or suggest, and have not been shown to teach or suggest, “a decompressor, including at least one command assembler, the decompressor configured to: generate, using the at least one command assembler and from the decoded data acquired from the respective streams of decoded data, commands for decompressing the respective streams of decoded data to recreate original data; and execute the commands to recreate the original data” as recited in claim 1.
Examiner respectful disagrees from the following:
Fig. 5 of application described the command assembler 500 in compressor system 306 is a device that received a decoded data 404-404 via a buffers (502—504) and generates command (output of 500) forward to operation of combiner 508. I
In light of application as described in Fig. 5 of application above, the command assembler is construed as a device that received a decoded data via buffers to generate command (output of the device) that forward to combiner; and command is construed as output of the device
As explained above, Fig. 3 of Jaquette discloses a decompressor 304, including at least one command assembler (370a and 370b are devices that received a decoded data via buffers 365a, 365b to generate command “output of the devices 370a and 370b” that forward to combiner 380; see Col. 6 lines 45-46 of Jaquette discloses: the collector 380 may merge the decompressed data streams 377 into a single output data stream 382), the decompressor (304) configured to: generate, using the at least one command assembler (370a or 370b device) and from the decoded data (362a, 362b) acquired (obtained or received) from the respective streams of decoded data (362a, 362b), commands (output signals from devices 370a and 370b) for decompressing (decompressing of 370a and 370b) the respective streams of decoded data (362a, 362b) to recreate original data (382; Col. 7 lines 65-66 discloses “The metadata facilitates reconstruction of the original data stream from the decompressed data streams” ); and execute the commands (execution of output signals of 370a, 370b) recreate the original data (382; Col. 7 lines 65-66 discloses “The metadata facilitates reconstruction of the original data stream from the decompressed data streams” ) as recited in claim 1.
The command assembler 500 described of application and compressor modules 370a-370b of Jaquette performed the same function “received parallel decoded data via buffers and generated an output forward to combiner to recreated the original data”. Therefore, command assembler device 500 anticipated by compressor modules 370a-370b.
Claims 2, 4-9, 21 and 22 are depended directly or indirectly from claim 1, and rejection of claims 2, 4-9, 21 and 22-23 for the same reason as applied to claim 1 above in this office action.
Claims 12, 14, 15, and 19-20 depended directly or indirectly from claim 11, and rejected for the same reason as applied to claim 1 above in this office action
From explained above, the same references from previous office action are applying to this office action.
Double Patenting
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, respectively, of U.S. Patent No.11,561,797. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,561,797 disclosed every limitation of application claims 1-3, respectively.
6. Claim 4 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No.11,561,797. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 of U.S. Patent No.11,561,797 disclosed every limitation of applicant claimed invention.
7. Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No.11,561,797. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of U.S. Patent No.11,561,797 disclosed every limitation of application claimed invention.
8. Claim is 6 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No.11,561,797. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 of U.S. Patent No.11,561,797 disclosed every limitation of application claimed invention.
9. Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No.11,561,797. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of U.S. Patent No.11,561,797 disclosed every limitation of applicant claimed invention.
10. Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No.11,561,797. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of U.S. Patent No.11,561,797 disclosed every limitation of application on claimed invention.
11. Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No.11,561,797. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 of U.S. Patent No.11,561,797 disclosed every limitation of application claimed invention.
12. Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No.11,561,797. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 17 of U.S. Patent No.11,561,797 disclosed every limitation of application claimed invention.
13. Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of U.S. Patent No.11,561,797. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 21 of U.S. Patent No.11,561,797 disclosed every limitation of application claimed invention.
14. Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 22 of U.S. Patent No.11,561,797. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 22 of U.S. Patent No.11,561,797 disclosed every limitation of application claimed invention.
15. Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No.11,561,797. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of U.S. Patent No.11,561,797 disclosed every limitation of application claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
16. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
17. Claims 11, 14-15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jaquette U.S. patent No. 6,816,093.
In light of application as described in Fig. 5 of application, the command assembler is construed as a device that received a decoded data via buffers to generate command (output of the device) that forward to combiner; and command is construed as an output from the device.
Regarding claim 11. Fig. 3 Jaquette disclose a method, comprising: decoding (decoder 360) each stream of data (332a or 332b of 304) from among multiple streams of data (332a, 322b) from compressed input data (322a, 322b of 302) to generate respective streams of decoded data (362a, 362b) , the decoding (360) of the multiple streams of data (332a, 332b) being performed substantially in parallel (parallel of 362a, 362b); generating, by a decompressor (304) from the respective streams of decoded data (362a, 362b), commands (outputs from 370a and 370b) for decompressing (304) the respective streams of decoded data (362a, 362b) to recreate original data (Col. 2 lines 61-62), each of the commands (each output from 370a or 370b) comprising executable code (executable output code of decompression module 370a or 370b), the executable code executable output code of decompression module 370a or 370b) being different (outputs 372a and 372b are decompressed format is not in decoded format of decoded data 362a, 362b) from the decoded data (362a, 362b) acquired from the respective streams of decoded data (obtain or receive from respective streams of decoded data 362a and 362b); generating by the decompressor (304) an aggregate command (382) by combining (380; Col. 6 lines 45-46 discloses “the collector 380 may merge the decompressed data streams 377 into a single output data stream 382) at least two of the commands (outputs from 370a and 3780b) for decompressing (304) the respective streams of decoded data (data 362a and 362b from decoder 360); and executing by the decompressor the commands (executes the outputs of 370a and 370b) to recreate the original data (382, 382; Col. 7 lines 65-66).
Regarding claim 14. The method of claim 11, Fig. 3 further discloses wherein generating the commands (outputs of 370a and 370b) for decompressing (304) the streams of decoded data (362a, 363b) includes: storing decoded data (362a, 362b) from each of the respective streams of decoded data in a respective buffer (365, 365b) from among multiple buffers (365a, 365b) ; generating, from decoded data (362a, 362b) ) acquired from the multiple buffers (365a, 365b), the commands (370a and 370b) for decompressing (304) the streams of decoded data (362a, 362b).
Regarding claim 15. The method of claim 14, Fig. 3 further discloses wherein generating the commands (outputs of 370a and 370b) for decompressing (304) the streams of decoded data (362a, 362b) includes: acquiring two or more separate portions of decoded data (362a, 362b) from one or more buffers (365a, 365b); or from respective streams of decoded data (362a, 362b); and generating, substantially in parallel (parallel 305a, 305b) , from each separate portion of the decoded data (362a, 362b), commands (outputs of 370a and 370b) for decompressing (304) the streams of decoded data (362a, 362b).
Regarding claim 23. The method of claim 11, Fig. 3 further discloses wherein generating the aggregate command (combining of 382; Col. 6 lines 45-46 discloses “the collector 380 may merge the decompressed data streams 377 into a single output data stream 382) is performed responsive to buffering (respective buffer 365a, 365b) the at least two of the commands (outputs of 370a and 370b) and identifying that the at least two of the commands (outputs of 370a and 370b) involve access to neighboring memory locations (Col. 4 lines 57-60) or a same memory location (Col. 4 lines 57-60).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
18. 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.
19. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 21, 22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaquette U.S. patent No. 6,816,093 in view of Andrews U.S patent No. 8,250,448.
In light of application as described in Fig. 5 of application, the command assembler is construed as a device that received a decoded data via buffers to generate command (output of the device) that forward to combiner; and command is construed as an output from the device.
Regarding claim 1. Fig. 3 of Jaquette disclose s a decompression engine (304), comprising: multiple decoders (Decoder 360, Col. 2 lines 63-65 discloses “media recorders includes one or more media decoders” each decoder (each of decoder 360) configured to decode a respective stream of data (steam of data 332a, 332b) from compressed input data (332a, 332b) to generate a respective stream of decoded data (362a, 362b); and a decompressor (305a, 305b) including at least one command assembler (devices 370a and 370b that receive parallel decode data 362 and 362b via buffers 365a and 365b), the decompressor (305a, 305b) configured to: generate, using the at least one command assembler (370a, 370b devices) and from decoded data acquired (received or obtained of decoded data 362a, 362b ) from the respective streams of decoded data (respective stream of 362a, 362b), commands (outputs 372a, 372b) for decompressing (304) the compressed input data (322a, 332b) to recreate original data (382; Col. 7 lines 65-66 discloses “The metadata facilitates reconstruction of the original data stream from the decompressed data streams”); and execute the commands (execution outputs of to recreate the original data (382, Col. 7 lines 65-66).
However, Jaquette does not explicitly disclose the decoding (360) being performed substantially in parallel by the multiple decoders.
Fig. 3b of Andrews discloses decoding (Decode Engines 312…315) being performed substantially in parallel by the multiple decoders (parallel Decode Engines 312...315).
Jaquette and Andrews are common subject matter of parallel decoding; therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of claimed invention to one ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to incorporate decoding of Andrews into decoding of Jaquette et al. for the purpose of provide an efficient decoder design to decode an encoded message data stream (Col. 2 lines 15-16 of Andrews)
Regarding claim 2. Andrews incorporated into Jaquette et al. applied to claim 1 above, Fig. 3 of Andrews further discloses, when decoding (Decode Engines 312…315) a respective stream of data (respective stream input of Decode Engines 312…315), each decoder (each decode Engine) of the multiple decoders (Decode Engines 312…315) is configured to: acquire, from a specified location (location of 302…304) in the respective stream of data (respective stream input of each Decode Engines 312…315), information (324) for generating a decoding reference (338).
Regarding claim 4. Jaquette combines with Andrews applied to claim 1 above, Fig. 3 of Jaquetter further discloses wherein: the decompressor (304) includes one or more buffers (365a, 365b) and at least one command assemble (380 is to assembling data 377a and 377b based command from controller 350); each buffer of the one or more buffers (each of 365 or 365b) is configured to store decoded data (362a, 362b) from one of the respective streams of decoded data (362a, 362b) and the command assembler (380 is to assembling data 377a and 377b based command from controller 350) is configured to: acquire decoded data (3657a, 367b) from the one or more buffers (365a, 365b); and generate, from the decoded data (362a, 362b) , the commands (command from controller 350b) for decompressing (304) the compressed input data (322a, 322b).
Regarding claim 5. Jaquette combines with Andrews applied to claim 4 above, Fig. 3 of Jaquette further discloses: wherein the decompressor (304) includes two or more command assemblers (370a and 370b); and each command assembler (each of 370a and 370b) is configured to, substantially in parallel (parallel of assembling of 37a and 370b) with others of the two or more command assemblers (370a and 370b): acquire a separate portion of decoded data (362a, 362b) from the one or more buffers (365a, 365b) and/or from respective streams of decoded data (362a, 362b) generated by the multiple decoders (360 as modified by Auyeng applied to claim 1 above) ; and generate, from the separate portion of the decoded data (362a, 362b), commands (outputs of 370a and 370b) for decompressing (304) the compressed input data (322a, 322b).
Regarding claim 6. Jaquette combined with Andrews applied to claim 1 above, Fig. 3 of Jaquetter further discloses: wherein: the decompressor (304) includes a combiner (380; Col. 6 lines 46-47 discloses “the collector 380 may merge the decompressed data streams 377 into a single output data stream 382”); and the combiner (380) is configured to selectively (selective of 380) combine two or more commands (outputs of 370a an 370b) into an aggregate command (command output 382).
Regarding claim 21. Jaquette combined with Andrews applied to claim 1 above, Fig. 3 of Jaquetter further discloses: wherein the input data (308) is compressed (320a or 320b) using a compression standard (compression standard of 320a or 320b), and wherein the commands (outputs of 370a and 370b) for decompressing (304) the respective streams of decoded data (362a or 362b) are associated with the compression standard (compression standard of 320a or 320b).
Regarding claim 22. Jaquette combined with Andrews applied to claim 1 above, Fig. 3 of Jaquetter et al. and Fig. 3b of Andrews further discloses: further comprising a stream combiner (318 in Fig. 3b of Andrews) configured to receive the respective streams of decoded data (330…333 in Fig. 3b of Andrews) from the multiple decoders (312…315 in Fig. 3b of Andrews), and combine (318 in Fig. 3b of Andrews) the respective streams of decoded data (330…333 in Fig. 3b of Andrews) to output a stream of decoded data (335 in Fig. 3b of Andrews), wherein the decompressor (304 in Fig 3 of Jaquette) is configured to generate, from the stream of decoded data output (360 in Fig. 3 of Jaquetter et al. modified by decoders in Fig. 3b of Andrews applied to claim 1 above) by the stream combiner (318 in Fig. 3b of Andrews), the commands (outputs of 370a and 370b) for decompressing (304) the respective streams of decoded data (362a, 362b in Fig. 3 of Jaquette et al.) to recreate original data (382 in Fig. 3 of Jaquette).
Regarding claim 26. Jaquette combined with Andrews applied to claim 1 above, Fig. 3 of Jaquetter et al. wherein the command (output of 372a and 372) comprises executable code (code of 372a and 372b) that is executed by the decompressor (340) , wherein the executable code (code of 372a and 372b) is different (uncompressed format of 372a and 372b) than the decoded data (decoded format of 362a and 362b) acquired from the respective streams of decoded data (362 and 362b).
20. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaquette combined with Andrews applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Korodi et al. Pub. No. 2011/0248872.
Jaquette combined with Andrews applied to claim 1 above, do not disclose wherein: the decompression engine (304) includes a command header decoder configured to: determine a starting location for each respective stream of data in the compressed input data and communicate, to each of the multiple decoders, the starting location of the respective one of the streams of data.
Fig. 1 of Korodi et al. the decompression engine (entropy decoders 306-1…306; paragraph 0046 discloses Entropy Encoder is a fundamental part of compression; therefore, Entropy decoder is a decompression device for decompress the compressed data of Entropy Encoder); includes a command header decoder (paragraph 0115); the command header decoder (paragraph 0115); is configured to: determine a starting location for each respective stream of data in the compressed input data (paragraph 0115); and communicate, to each of the multiple decoder (entropy decoders 306-1…306s), the starting location (304-1) of the respective one of the streams of data (304-1…30-N).
Jaquette/ Andrews and Korodi are common subject matter of parallel decoding; therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of claimed invention to one ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to incorporate Korodi et al. into Jaquette et al./ Andrews for the purpose of providing header field, the decoder will know the length and location of each of the encoded subsequences. From this it may calculate the same division of the payload into segments as an encoder would have done, and thus can associate the auxiliary information in the second field with the appropriate segment (paragraph 0115 of Korodi).
21. Claims 8 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaquette combined with Andrews applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Kaldewey et al. Pub. No. 2018/0232420.
Regarding claim 8. Jaquette combined with Andrews applied to claim 1 above do not discloses wherein: wherein the respective stream of decoded data generated by each decoder includes some or all of literals, command tags, distances, and lengths.
Fig. 2 of Kaldewey et al. discloses a decompress (110) wherein the respective stream of decoded data (decode data of 420) generated by each decoder (420) includes one or more of literals, command tags, distances, and lengths (see Fig. 4 for discloses some or all of literals (Literal List V), command tags (Token Sequence S), distances and lengths (Back-Ref List B).
Jaquette/ Auyeung and Kaldewey are common subject matter of parallel decoding; therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of claimed invention to one ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to incorporate Kaldewey into Jaquette/ Auyeung for the purpose of processing sets decompress in parallel to exploit inter-block parallelism; each processor set comprises one or more processors that collaborate in decompressing an assigned data block to exploit intra-block parallelism to generated uncompressed data (paragraph 0003 Kaldewey).
Regarding claim 24. Jaquette combined with Andrews applied to claim 1 above, Fig. 3 of Jaquettr further discloses wherein the at least one command assembler (370a or 370b) is configured to generate the commands (output 372a or 372b) for decompressing (304) the compressed input data (332a, 322b) to recreate original data (382; Col. 7 lines 65-66 discloses “The metadata facilitates reconstruction of the original data stream from the decompressed data streams”) by: acquiring, from the respective streams of decoded data (respective stream of decoded data 362a, 362b), a command (either output of 372a or 372b) that, when executed (executed of 372a or 372b) , causes the decompressor (340) to add data (380; Col. 6 lines 45-46 discloses “the collector 380 may merge the decompressed data streams 377 into a single output data stream 382)a recreation of the original data (382, 382; Col. 7 lines 65-66).
However, Jaquette/ Auyeung do not discloses acquiring, from the respective streams of decoded data, at least one of a command tag, a length, or a distance; and generating, based on the at least one of the command tag, the length, or the distance, a command that, when executed, causes the decompressor to add data to a recreation of the original data.
Fig. 2 of Kaldewey et al. discloses discloses a decompress (110) comprising acquiring, from the respective streams of decoded data (420), at least one of a command tag, a length, or a distance; and generating, based on the at least one of the command tag, the length, or the distance (see Fig. 4 for discloses some or all of literals (Literal List V), command tags (Token Sequence S), distances and lengths (Back-Ref List B)), a command (length and offset of Fig. 4) that, when executed, causes the decompressor (110) to add data (see Fig. 4) to a recreation of the original data (Uncompressed data) .
Jaquette/ Auyeung and Kaldewey are common subject matter of parallel decoding; therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of claimed invention to one ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to incorporate Kaldewey into Jaquette/ Auyeung for the purpose of processing sets decompress in parallel to exploit inter-block parallelism; each processor set comprises one or more processors that collaborate in decompressing an assigned data block to exploit intra-block parallelism to generated uncompressed data (paragraph 0003 Kaldewey).
22. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaquette applied to claim 11 above in view of Andrews U.S patent No. 8,250,448.
Jaquette applied to claim 11 above does not discloses wherein decoding (360) each stream of data of the multiple streams (332a, 332b) of data includes: acquiring, from a specified location in that stream of data, information for generating a decoding reference.
Fig. 3b of Andrews discloses a parallel decoders (312…315), when decoding (312…315) the respective stream of data (respective stream input of 312…315), each decoder (each of 312…315) of the multiple decoders (312…315) is configured to: acquire, from a specified location (location of 302…305) in the respective stream of data (respective stream input of 312…315), information (324) for generating a decoding reference (338).
Jaquette and Andrews are common subject matter of parallel decoding; therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of claimed invention to one ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to incorporate Andrews into Jaquette et al. for the purpose of provide an efficient decoder design to decode an encoded message data stream (Col. 2 lines 15-16 of Andrews).
Allowable Subject Matter
23. Claim 25 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior arts do not teach do not teach: the command causes the decompressor to add one or more literals to an end of the original data generated from the decoded data acquired form the respective streams of decoded data
Conclusion
24. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
25. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Linh Van Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-1810. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:30 – 5:00 Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Dameon E. Levi can be reached at (571) 272-2105. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (571-273-8300) for regular communications and (571-273-8300) for After Final communications.
03/19/2026
/LINH V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845