DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13--20 are pending.
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 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 19 is drawn to a signal, a carrier wave, or a data structure, per se; therefore, fail(s) to fall within a statutory category of invention. The originally filed disclosure, in [0151], includes description of “non-transitory processor-readable storage media may be any storage media that may be accessed by a computer or processor” which includes a transitory storage medium.
A claim directed to a signal, a carrier wave, or a data structure, per se, is non-statutory because it is not:
A process, or
A machine, or
A manufacture, or
A composition of matter.
Claim 20 is rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims recite the limitation “wherein the compressed continuous serialized bandwidth data preserves bandwidth compression characteristics of the bandwidth compression technique used to generate the bandwidth compressed data”. There is no teaching in the originally filed disclosure to provide support for the above limitation and is considered a new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-11, 14, 15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. [US 20240078453] in view of Yamagiwa et al. [US 20220239316].
As to claim 1. Singh discloses A method performed by a bandwidth compressed data mover system of a computing device for moving bandwidth compressed data, comprising:
accessing, from memory, bandwidth compressed data, [0167] read compressed data from memory 1908 for transmission;
generating metadata associated with the bandwidth compressed data, [0163] metadata used for indicating which portion of the memory block contains valid data, wherein the metadata includes an identification of valid bandwidth compressed data of bandwidth compressed data, [0163], stored in the memory, [fig. 18, 0165], the identification of the valid bandwidth compressed data being based on a configuration of a bandwidth compression technique used to generate the bandwidth compressed data, [0163, 0169] metadata indicates type of encoding used, wherein the bandwidth compressed data includes valid bandwidth compressed data and invalid bandwidth compressed data, [0163];
streaming the bandwidth compressed data, [fig. 21, 0170, 0173] encoding into a series of bit stream, based on the metadata, [fig. 20, 0172, 0173] wherein the metadata is used to indicate if the bit stream is valid or invalid, [0164] so that only valid data is transmitted and invalid data is omitted, wherein streamed bandwidth compressed data includes the valid bandwidth compressed data identified in the metadata, [0164] only valid data is transmitted and invalid data is omitted.
Singh fails to disclose wherein the bandwidth compression technique reduces signaling bandwidth by reducing voltage transitions during data movement, and wherein the method wherein the streaming is serializing the bandwidth compressed data based on the metadata to generate continuous serialized bandwidth compressed data, and wherein the invalid bandwidth compressed data is subject to at least one of omission from the continuous serialized bandwidth compressed data, or replacement by padded data in the continuous serialized bandwidth compressed data.
Yamagiwa teaches a data compression and decompression method and device that is implemented for data transmission of the compressed data, [0164]; wherein the method includes compressing the data using a compressor 11, and then serializing the compressed data using the serializer 12, [fig. 10, 0162]; wherein the compressor outputs the compressed data, Cmark bit, and data mask bits, [0163]; wherein the Cmark bit is an identifier of valid compressed data, and the data mask bits represent the number of valid bits [0163], that reads on the metadata as claimed; wherein the serializer uses the Cmark bit for serializing the compressed data, and connect the data in series, [0164]; wherein the serializer removes invalid bits from the compressed data based on the data mask, [fig. 11, 0165, 0166]; wherein removing the invalid bits reduces the number of voltage transitions needed.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Singh with that of Yamagiwa so that compressed data can be ready for transmission.
As to claim 2. Singh fails to disclose The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a continuous serial data stream based on the continuous serialized bandwidth compress data; and sending the continuous serial data stream to a destination interface.
Yamagiwa teaches a data compression and decompression method and device that is implemented for data transmission of the compressed data, [0164]; wherein the method includes compressing the data using a compressor 11, and then serializing the compressed data using the serializer 12, [fig. 10, 0162]; wherein the compressor outputs the compressed data, Cmark bit, and data mask bits, [0163]; wherein the Cmark bit is an identifier of valid compressed data, and the data mask bits represent the number of valid bits [0163], that reads on the metadata as claimed; wherein the serializer uses the Cmark bit for serializing the compressed data, and connect the data in series, [0164]; wherein the serializer outputs the data in series, and transmit the data to a destination interface, [0164].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Singh with that of Yamagiwa so that compressed data can be ready for transmission.
As to claim 5. Singh discloses The method of claim 2, further comprising:
providing the continuous serialized data stream to a decoder, [0167, 0194] encoded data stream transmitted to a decoder;
decoding the continuous serial data stream in the decoder to produce the valid bandwidth compressed data, [0167, 0194]; and
writing the valid bandwidth compressed data decoded to the output device, [0167, 0194].
As to claim 6. Singh discloses The method of claim 1, wherein: the identification of the valid bandwidth compressed data of the bandwidth compressed data stored in the memory comprises identifying an address in the memory for the valid bandwidth compressed data, [0163] metadata used for indicating valid compressed data, [0193] wherein the metadata includes coordinates of the valid compressed data, and a length of the valid bandwidth compressed data from metadata associated with the bandwidth compressed data, [0164]; and
Singh fails to disclose wherein the serializing bandwidth compressed data comprises loading the valid bandwidth compressed data from the memory based on the address in the memory for the valid bandwidth compressed data and the length of the valid bandwidth compressed data.
Yamagiwa teaches a data compression and decompression method and device that is implemented for data transmission of the compressed data, [0164]; wherein the method includes compressing the data using a compressor 11, and then serializing the compressed data using the serializer 12, [fig. 10, 0162]; wherein the compressor 11 outputs the compressed data, Cmark bit, and data mask bits to the serializer 12, [0163]; wherein the Cmark bit is an identifier of valid compressed data, and the data mask bits represent the number of valid bits [0163], that reads on the metadata as claimed; wherein the serializer uses the Cmark bit to determine the valid data bits and the data mask bit to determine the length of the valid data bits for serializing the compressed data, [0163, 0164].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Singh with that of Yamagiwa so that serializer serializes only the valid data.
As to claim 9. Singh discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising providing the metadata associated with the valid bandwidth compressed data to an output device, [0164] transmit metadata.
As to claim 10. Singh discloses A computing device for moving bandwidth compressed data, comprising: a memory, [fig. 19, 0166] memory 1908; and a bandwidth compressed data mover system coupled to the memory, [fig. 19, 0166] DMA controller 1906, and configured to: perform the steps as claimed in claim 1 which is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 1.
As to claims 11, 14, 15, 18 are rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claims 2, 5, 6, 9, respectively.
As to claim 19. Singh discloses A non-transitory processor-readable medium having stored thereon processor executable instructions configured to cause a bandwidth compressed data mover system of a computing device to perform operations, [0045], comprising: perform the steps as claimed in claim 1 which is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 1.
As to claim 20 is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 2.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Yamagwa as applied to claims 1, 10 above, further in view of Heddes et al. [US 20150339237].
As to claim 7. Singh discloses The method of claim 1, wherein generating the metadata comprises:
identifying an address in the memory for the valid bandwidth compressed data using a memory address technique, [0198] provide address before encoding the data;
calculating a length of the valid bandwidth compressed data, [0164] determine the size of each KBU/FBU, [0163] which are the valid and invalid compressed data; and
generating the metadata to associate with the valid bandwidth compressed data that identifies the address in the memory for the valid bandwidth compressed data and the length of the valid bandwidth compressed data, [0163, 0164], wherein:
the rest of the limitation is the same as the steps as claimed in claim 6, and are rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 6.
The combination of Singh and Yamagiwa fails to disclose wherein the address technique is a speculation address technique.
Heddes teaches a memory controller employing bandwidth compression that implements a speculation addressing for storing the compressed data, [abs.].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Singh and Yamagiwa with that of Heddes so that the system can have an additional performance can be achieved in conjunction with the bandwidth compression, as indicated in Heddes [0115].
As to claim 8. the combination of Singh and Yamagiwa fails to disclose The method of claim 7, further comprising:
identifying mis-speculated valid bandwidth compressed data associated with the address in the memory for the valid bandwidth compressed data; storing the mis-speculated valid bandwidth compressed data in a speculation memory; identifying valid bandwidth compressed data from the mis-speculated valid bandwidth compressed data stored in the speculation memory for a request for bandwidth compressed data; and loading the valid bandwidth compressed data from the speculation memory.
Heddes teaches a memory controller employing bandwidth compression that implements a speculation addressing for storing the compressed data, [abs.]; wherein when a request for access is received, the compressed memory controller 36 accesses the memory 38 to access the physical buffers (PB) for memory access based on the received physical address (PA) using an address translation technique, [0060]; wherein the translation is performed using a translation lookaside buffer (TLB), [0061]; wherein, when a TLB miss occurs, the controller 36 performs an operation to determine the valid address of the valid data requested using a replacement policy, [0063, 0083]; wherein the controller 36 reads the address using a prefetching scheme to speculatively prefetch the data from the memory 38, [0115].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Singh and Yamagiwa with that of Heddes so that the system can have an additional performance can be achieved in conjunction with the bandwidth compression, as indicated in Heddes [0115].
As to claims 16, 17 are rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claims 7, 8, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: In rejecting these claims under 101, the Examiner has improperly interpreted the description of the term “non-transitory” in the specification as including a signal.
Response 1: MPEP 2106.03(II) 4th paragraph states “the BRI of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate.”
MPEP 2106(II) 2nd paragraph states “Claim interpretation affects the evaluation of both criteria for eligibility. For example, in Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 112 USPQ2d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2017), claim interpretation was crucial to the court’s determination that claims to a "machine-readable medium" were not to a statutory category. In Mentor Graphics, the court interpreted the claims in light of the specification, which expressly defined the medium as encompassing "any data storage device" including random-access memory and carrier waves. Although random-access memory and magnetic tape are statutory media, carrier waves are not because they are signals similar to the transitory, propagating signals held to be non-statutory in Nuijten. 851 F.3d at 1294, 112 USPQ2d at 1133 (citing In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, because the BRI of the claims covered both subject matter that falls within a statutory category (the random-access memory), as well as subject matter that does not (the carrier waves), the claims as a whole were not to a statutory category and thus failed the first criterion for eligibility.”
The originally filed disclosure, in [0151] of the published application, specifically defines the term as “Non-transitory … processor-readable storage media may be any storage media that may be accessed by a computer or a processor.” A transitory storage medium can be accessed by a processor. Therefore, the claimed “non-transitory processor readable storage media” includes a transitory storage media, in light of the originally filed disclosure.
Argument 2: The specification provides support for the limitations in claims 4, ad 13 in [001, 0027, 0028].
Response 2: The originally filed disclosure in the above cited paragraphs does not specify that the serialized data preserves the bandwidth compression characteristics of the compression technique.
Argument 3: The prior arts on file do not teach the newly added limitation.
Response 3: The Office Action is amended to address the newly added limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688