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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pinho et al. (USP 10,169,359).
Regarding claim 1, Pinho et al discloses a compression architecture in figure 1 that teaches: splitting (similar function as dividing), by a computer processor (120), input file (similar as binary input) into trailing zero or trailing fraction (same meaning as plurality of chunks), wherein the input file (same as binary input) includes a plurality of instructions; clustering, by the computer processor (150), similar chunks (such as trailing zeros into a group and/or trailing fraction into a group) of the plurality of chunks; and performing, by the computer processor (175, 185, 190), compression of the binary code, the compression being tailored to one or more groups (same as clusters of the similar chunks) (see figure 1 and its descriptions).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is claiming similar function and limitations as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected as well as rejected in claim 1, such as: Pinho et al discloses a compression architecture in figure 1 that teaches: splitting (similar function as dividing), by a computer processor (120), input file (similar as binary input) into trailing zero or trailing fraction (same meaning as plurality of chunks), wherein the input file (same as binary input) includes a plurality of instructions; clustering, by the computer processor (150), similar chunks (such as trailing zeros into a group and/or trailing fraction into a group) of the plurality of chunks; and performing, by the computer processor (175, 185, 190), compression of the binary code, the compression being tailored to one or more groups (same as clusters of the similar chunks) (see figure 1 and its descriptions).
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is claiming similar function and limitations as claimed in claim 1 in computer program format. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected as well as rejected in claim 1, such as: Pinho et al discloses a compression architecture in figure 1 that teaches: splitting (similar function as dividing), by a computer processor (120), input file (similar as binary input) into trailing zero or trailing fraction (same meaning as plurality of chunks), wherein the input file (same as binary input) includes a plurality of instructions; clustering, by the computer processor (150), similar chunks (such as trailing zeros into a group and/or trailing fraction into a group) of the plurality of chunks; and performing, by the computer processor (175, 185, 190), compression of the binary code, the compression being tailored to one or more groups (same as clusters of the similar chunks) (see figure 1 and its descriptions).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable If it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art of record considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest object features, such as: formulating, by the computer processor, a symbol table based on the plurality of instructions.
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable If it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art of record considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest object features, such as: wherein the plurality of chunks includes divided instructions and the symbol table is formulated based on the divided instructions.
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable If it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art of record considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest object features, such as: wherein the plurality of instructions is divided into half-bytes.
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable If it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art of record considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest object features, such as: wherein the clustering is performed at least in part by: determining chunk statistics for each chunk of the plurality of chunks; and clustering chunks from the plurality of chunks into clusters based on the chunk statistics.
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable If it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art of record considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest object features, such as: wherein the chunk statistics are based on at least one of: variable length instruction formats; variable at least one of bit or byte distribution between instruction formats; one or more lossless compression algorithm matches; one or more zero segments within the binary code; or padding within the binary code.
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable If it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art of record considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest object features, such as: wherein the compression is tailored to the one or more clusters at least in part by: performing at least one evaluation of contributions of two or more different compression techniques in performing the compression; and iteratively tailoring the two or more different compression techniques based on the at least one evaluation.
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable If it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art of record considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest object features, such as: wherein the two or more different compression techniques include a combination of a lossless compression algorithm corresponding to arithmetic coding and an additional lossless compression algorithm.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable If it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art of record considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest object features, such as: wherein the additional lossless compression algorithm corresponds to a Lempel-Ziv algorithm.
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable If it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art of record considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest object features, such as: wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one physical processor to: formulate a symbol table based on the plurality of instructions.
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable If it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art of record considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest object features, such as: herein the plurality of chunks includes divided instructions and the symbol table is formulated based on the divided instructions.
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable If it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art of record considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest object features, such as: wherein the plurality of instructions is divided into half-bytes.
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable If it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art of record considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest object features, such as: wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the at least one physical processor to cluster the similar chunks at least in part by: determining chunk statistics for each chunk of the plurality of chunks; and clustering chunks from the plurality of chunks into clusters based on the chunk statistics.
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable If it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art of record considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest object features, such as: wherein the compression is tailored to the one or more clusters at least in part by: performing at least one evaluation of contributions of two or more different compression techniques in performing the compression; and iteratively tailoring the two or more different compression techniques based on the at least one evaluation.
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable If it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art of record considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest object features, such as: wherein the two or more different compression techniques include a combination of a lossless compression algorithm corresponding to arithmetic coding and an additional lossless compression algorithm.
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable If it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art of record considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest object features, such as: wherein the additional lossless compression algorithm corresponds to a Lempel-Ziv algorithm.
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable If it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art of record considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest object features, such as: wherein the one or more computer-executable instructions cause the computing device to cluster the similar chunks at least in part by: determining chunk statistics for each chunk of the plurality of chunks; and clustering chunks from the plurality of chunks into clusters based on the chunk statistics.
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable If it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art of record considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest object features, such as: wherein the compression is tailored to the one or more clusters at least in part by: performing at least one evaluation of contributions of two or more different compression techniques in performing the compression, wherein the two or more different compression techniques include a combination of a lossless compression algorithm corresponding to arithmetic coding and an additional lossless compression algorithm; and iteratively tailoring the two or more different compression techniques based on the at least one evaluation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM T MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-1807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-2pm eastern time.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at 571 272-2105. 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.
/LAM T MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights