CTNF 18/214,830 CTNF 71563 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Examiner finds no credible double patenting rejections in the current claim language (see below). Examiner notes the following specification definition of entropy: “ In the context compression according to example embodiments, entropy is the amount of randomness in a given payload.” Double Patenting Considerations: U.S. Pat. App. No. 19/324,945 (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2025/0384011): The claim language of related patent ‘945 (same assignee (Intel) and two common inventors (Fei Z. Wang; Giovanni Cabiddu)) does not disclose the “ identify a compression algorithm from configuration data provided with the input data, wherein the user application parameters do not include parameters specifying entropy thresholds for compression of the input data ”; “ determine whether to provide the uncompressed data blocks or compressed data blocks based at least in part on entropy of the input data ” (and other detailed steps), as seen in independent claims 1 and 12 of the present Application. In addition, ‘945 do not disclose “ generating an application programming interface (API) call to compression accelerator circuitry, the API call including data to be compressed by the accelerator circuitry and the API call not including parameters specifying entropy thresholds for compression of the data to be compressed ” (and other detailed steps), as seen in independent claim 16 of the present Application. Therefore, there are no double patenting rejections in the current Application with regard to ‘945. U.S. Pat. App. No. 17/865,594 (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0391110): The claim language of related patent ‘594 (same assignee (Intel) and two common inventors (Fei Wang; Giovanni Cabiddu)) does not disclose the “ identify a compression algorithm from configuration data provided with the input data, wherein the user application parameters do not include parameters specifying entropy thresholds for compression of the input data ”; “ determine whether to provide the uncompressed data blocks or compressed data blocks based at least in part on entropy of the input data ” (and other detailed steps), as seen in independent claims 1 and 12 of the present Application. In addition, ‘594 do not disclose “ generating an application programming interface (API) call to compression accelerator circuitry, the API call including data to be compressed by the accelerator circuitry and the API call not including parameters specifying entropy thresholds for compression of the data to be compressed ” (and other detailed steps), as seen in independent claim 16 of the present Application. Therefore, there are no double patenting rejections in the current Application with regard to ‘594. Claim Objections Claims 3, 6, 14, and 16 – 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: 07-34-05 AIA Claim 3 recites the limitation " corresponding headers " in line 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends the language “the corresponding headers”; 07-34-05 AIA Claim 14 recites the limitation " corresponding headers " in line 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends the language “the corresponding headers”; 07-34-05 AIA Claim 6 recites the limitation " uncompressed data blocks " in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends the language “the uncompressed data blocks”; 07-34-05 AIA Claim 16 recites the limitation " the accelerator circuitry " in lines 4 – 5 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends the language “the compression accelerator circuitry”; 07-34-05 AIA Claim 17 recites the limitation " the header " in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends the language “the header information”; 07-34-05 AIA Claim 18 recites the limitation " the header " in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends the language “the header information”; Examiner recommends a thorough review of the claim language in order to correct other possible antecedent basis concerns. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 16 – 18 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because per the “machine-readable medium” claims (claims 16 – 18), claims 16 – 18 read on a carrier wave. Examiner notes the following language in the current specification: “ The memory 108 may be embodied as any type of volatile or non-volatile memory or data storage capable of performing the functions described herein. It should be appreciated that the memory 108 may include main memory (e.g., a primary memory) and/or cache memory (e.g., memory that can be accessed more quickly than the main memory). Volatile memory may be a storage medium that requires power to maintain the state of data stored by the medium. Non-limiting examples of volatile memory may include various types of random access memory (RAM), such as dynamic random access memory (DRAM) or static random access memory (SRAM) .” (p. 14, paragraph 46) The term “machine-readable medium” is open-ended in the specification. Therefore, the term “machine-readable medium” is not precisely defined in the specification or claim language as omitting data signals, carrier waves, propagation medium, or other transport mechanisms. Therefore, by not omitting these possibilities, data signals, carrier waves, propagation medium, and other transport mechanisms can be considered possibilities for the “computer readable storage device” claims (claims 16 – 18) in the present claim language. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors . In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 16 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slegel et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0295781) (Verifying the Correctness of a Deflate Compression Accelerator) in view of Keslin (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0028691) (System, Method, and Computer Program Product for Remote Graphics Processing) . 1.1 Regarding claim 16, Slegel disclose a machine-readable medium including instructions that, when executed on a processor (paragraph 57 “ The components of computer system 10 may include, but are not limited to, one or more processors … ”; paragraphs 7, 42), cause the processor to perform functions including: generating a request ( an application programming interface (API) call ) to compression accelerator circuitry, the request ( API call ) including data to be compressed by the accelerator circuitry and the API call not including parameters specifying entropy thresholds for compression of the data to be compressed (Fig. 1; Fig. 2; paragraph 81 “ In some embodiments of the invention, a request block (not depicted) can be used to facilitate the request . In some embodiments of the invention, the request block is delivered to a compression interface of the OS 50 ” ; paragraph 82 “ In some embodiments of the invention, to begin processing a compression request , the DEFLATE accelerator 17 reads a request block, and processes the data in the input buffer 202 to generate compressed or and/or decompressed data …”); and receiving output data including header information indicating whether the output data includes compressed data (paragraph 69 “ To accommodate decompression … the Huffman tree is written at the header of every compressed block … ”). However, Slegel do not explicitly disclose that the request is a generated API call. Slegel do disclose usage of “ APIs for performing the data manipulation functions provided by the specialized hardware devices such as, for example, an accelerator (not shown in FIG. 1) ” (paragraph 63). In the same field of invention (API usage in compressed data manipulation), Keslin discloses a generated API call (paragraph 64 “ the graphics application generates graphics instructions in step 320 …”; claim 1 “ generating an application programming interface call for producing rendered image data …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the API call feature of Keslin into Slegel in order to facilitate the performance of data manipulation functions with regard to an accelerator as seen in Slegel (paragraph 63). 1.2 Per claim 17, Slegel disclose the machine-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the header includes information indicating a compression algorithm used for compressing the data (paragraph 69 “ To accommodate decompression … the Huffman tree is written at the header of every compressed block … ”). 1.3 Regarding claim 18, Slegel disclose the machine-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the header indicates that the compression algorithm comprises a DEFLATE compression algorithm (paragraph 69 “Th e compression algorithm can also include the ‘ DEFLATE’ compression format , which uses a combination of the LZ77 algorithm (which removes repetitions from the data) and Huffman coding. The Huffman encoding is entropy encoding that is based on a ‘Huffman tree’…”) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 1 – 15 are allowed. For future email communications (including interview agendas), Applicant should file the appropriate PTO form ( PTO/SB/439 ) or file an air interview request. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH R COULTER whose telephone number is (571) 272-3879. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (EST) . 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, Oscar Louie can be reached at M-H, 7:30am-2:30pm (EST) (571-270-1684) . 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. /KENNETH R COULTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445 /KRC/ Application/Control Number: 18/214,830 Page 2 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/214,830 Page 3 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/214,830 Page 4 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/214,830 Page 5 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/214,830 Page 6 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/214,830 Page 7 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/214,830 Page 8 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/214,830 Page 9 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/214,830 Page 10 Art Unit: 2445
Prosecution Insights