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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with regards to the 101 rejection.
Applicant argues no mathematical relationship, algorithm, equation or formula (i.e. mathematical concept) is recited by the claim. Applicant states that the claim is directed to the technological concept of data compression which has a clear practical application in data storage and transmission.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Byte data compression is a mathematical concept that cannot be performed without the use of lossless algorithms, lossy algorithms, or a hybrid of lossless and lossy algorithms. At no point can data compression be performed without the mathematical concept of an algorithm. While the claims do not state the term “algorithm” it does claim “compression” specific to byte data compression which is a mathematical concept as shown above. Applicant admits on the first line of page 7 that the claimed compression is of lossless or lossy [algorithms].
MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings I. Mathematical concepts: The Court’s rationale for identifying these "mathematical concepts" as judicial exceptions is that a ‘‘mathematical [concept] as such is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,’’ Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191, 209 USPQ at 15 (citing Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673), and thus ‘‘the discovery of [a mathematical concept] cannot support a patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application.’’ Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ at 199.
As shown above, a claim employing a mathematical concept does direct the claims to an abstract idea unless “there is some other inventive concept in its application”. To identify the inventive concept, in view of the claims, we look at the updated subject matter analysis provided by Ex Parte Desjardins (December 5, 2025), herein after referred to as Desjardins, and 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence published July 17, 2024 (89 FR 58128) (AI-SME Update). Desjardins, page 1 “2)”, states “improvements in computational performance, learning, storage, data set and structures, for example, can constitute patent-eligible technological advancements under the Alice framework.” In order to identify the improvement as being an eligible improvement in technology “ when the specification provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing a technological improvement and the claims reflect the disclosed improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, so long as the specification describes the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” (Desjardin page 3)(MPEP2106.05(a)).
Therefore, establishing whether the claimed mathematical concepts are directed to an abstract idea is tied to whether the inventive concept is claimed or reflected by the claims. Applicant’s remarks, pages 7-8, states that the specification’s described means of compression utilizing the second compression module for compressing the 2-bit data values with “tend” to be smaller (in terms of silicon area) than a compression module which is configured for compressing 10-bit data values. The above specification disclosure describes compression to be a well known technique and therefore disclosure of compression in and of itself is not a disclosure of an improvement to the technology or a practical application. What is the improvement implied described by the specification is the possible ability of reducing the silicon area by reducing the amount of bits compression per module. It is considered implied since the specification particularly uses not definitive wording of “tend”. Applicant argues the improvement is to data compression but the specification disclosure, as shown above, implies the improvement to the physical area of the silicon itself and no improvement to the compression method/algorithm is disclosed or performed. Further, the claims themselves do not disclose or reflect/imply the improvement of reducing the silicon area.
In view of the above, it is suggested to definitively claim the improvement of reducing the silicon area as compared to compression techniques that do not divide compression between multiple modules. Such an amendment would overcome the current 101 rejection by enabling the claims to states/reflect the improvement to the technology and practical application in view of the mathematical concept of compression. However, until such amendments are made the 101 rejection is upheld.
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 1-8, 10, 16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims 1, 16 and 20 recite computer implemented method of compressing bit data values by dividing the bits of the data value into subsets of bits and performing compression of the subsets. The claims recite mathematical calculation used to determine compression of bit data value, Thus, the claims recite a mathematical concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it recites compression modules using mathematical concepts to obtain data using compression schemes.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims employ mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information and are directed essentially to a method of calculating using mathematical formulas. Accordingly, the claims are an abstract idea similar to concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in DIGITECH and obtaining and comparing intangible data in CyberSource.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein (n - 2) = 2x, wherein x is an integer”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical calculation, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein n = 6 or n = 10 or n = 18”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical calculation, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein the first compression module compresses the first subset by 50%”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical calculation, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein the compression of the first subset is independent of the compression of the second subset”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical calculation, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein the data value represents image data”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical calculation, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “further comprising storing in memory the result of the compression of the first subset and the result of the compression of the second subset”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical calculation, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein the second compression module compresses the second subset by at least 62.5% and/or by no more than 66.7%”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical calculation, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein the one bit indicative of a least significant bit for the group of four data values is generated using a Boolean expression of the least significant bits of the four data values in the group”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical calculation, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 19 is dependent on claim 16 and includes all the limitations of claim 16. Therefore, claim 19 recites the same abstract idea of claim 16. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein the compression unit is embodied in hardware on an integrated circuit”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional limitation recited at a high-level of generality, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WU et al. (US 2018/0040367 A1): shows in paragraphs [0052]-[0057], [0095] indicate one of a plurality of programming modes used for compression types of the pages from which bits are selected to store, wherein at least one of the programming modes is associated with translation functions based on a truth table associating states of the second number of bits of information with a subset of states of the first number of bits of information that are programmed using the second number of threshold voltage levels.
Edo Vivancos et al. (US 2023/0131251 A1): paragraph [0003] compressing the data stream by sequentially compacting each subset, comprising: identifying, for values within the subset, a compressed bit width necessary to accommodate the value with the highest magnitude; storing the bit width in a bit width register associated with the row; storing, in the respective column of the memory beginning from a first unoccupied bit, a least significant bits of each value within the subset, the number of bits equal to the bit width, wherein if storing the number of bits requires more bits than those currently left unused in the respective column of the respective row, the remaining bits are written into the respective column of a subsequent row.
Sloane (US 2023/0006691 A1): paragraph [0041] use one or more compression algorithms to perform the data compression of the data set. In some embodiments, the compression algorithm may be a lossy compression algorithm that, over time, removes the least significant bit of a data set at predefined intervals (which may be referred to herein as “compression intervals”). Accordingly, the “compression rate” for a data set may be inversely proportional to the compression intervals (e.g., shorter compression intervals result in a higher compression rate, and longer compression intervals result in a lower compression rate)
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 IRIANA CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3246. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6.
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, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/IRIANA CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681