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 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that while the “attempted” language has been corrected, and the claims reconsidered under the improved language, the claim has still has issues relating to its clarity. Namely, Applicants amendment that K is an index, renders many further references to a “k-th” element as being unclear as K has been defined in the claim as an index and not a specific variable. As such, many of the uses of K are unclear according to current language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “table information.” However, this is unclear as the claims reference both “second management table information” and “first management table information.” The claim is unclear whether “table information” is related to the first/second management table information.
Claims 2-20 are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the table information added to the k-th hash table and the (k+1)-th hash table does not include a key.” The claim is unclear because “K” has been defined by the claim as “an index that increases sequentially from 1,” and thus is not a variable. It is unclear then how the claim can use K in reference to a specific hash table when K is not a variable, i.e. K is a set of variable, such as K = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7} rather than K = 7.
Claims 2-20 are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
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.
2. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jin et al. (US 20170078200 A1).
Claim 1 Jin teaches a method performed by an apparatus for constructing a multi-stage hash table composed of n hash tables and n management tables, (Examiner notes that as a “hash table” is stated as comprising “n hash tables and n management tables” Examiner interprets a hash and management table as being identical) the method comprising:
generating first management table information, (FIG. 5A, ¶0059, creating a first table, i.e. the first management table information) the first management table information including a key and a hash value obtained by hashing the key with a hash function; (FIG. 5A, step 508, generating a hash value using a key and applying the hash function to the key)
determining whether second management table information having the same hash value as the hash value included in the first management table information is present (FIG. 4B, step 428, ¶0048, determining whether has values in a first table are present within another table) in a k-th management table; (Examiner interprets this as being a non-specific second table, i.e. determining whether the information is present in another table) and
adding table information to the k-th management table and a k-th hash table among n hash tables (FIG. 4B, ¶0049, generating additional hash values for the tables) or to a (k+1)-th management table and a (k+1)-th hash table based on the determination result,
wherein k is an index that increases sequentially from 1, (Examiner interprets this as being a commonly understood semantic designation, i.e. K being a series integers starting from 1; ¶0037, for example Jin uses “k1” as wherein K is a integer sequence starting from 1) such that the determining and the adding are performed starting from a first management table and a first hash table, (Examiner notes that similarly this is merely a semantic convention, i.e. K is a integer sequence starting from one, and “first” table are the start of the method performance) wherein the table information added to the k-th hash table and the (k+1)-th hash table does not include a key. (See 112b, Examiner notes that this is incoherent according to Applicant’s claim language as “K” is not a variable, but rather an “index” as such there is no specific “k-th or (k+1)-th” tables)
Claim 2 Jin teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein attempting to add the table information comprises:
adding third management table information and fourth management table information to the (k+1)-th management table and adding first hash table information and second hash table information to the (k+1)-th hash table, (FIG. 4B, ¶0049, generating additional hash values for the tables) when the second management table information having the same hash value as the hash value included in the first management table information is present (FIG. 4B, step 428, ¶0048, determining whether has values in a table are present within another table) in the k-th management table. (Examiner interprets this as being a non-specific second table, i.e. determining whether information is present in other table)
Claim 3 Jin teaches Claim 2, and further teaches wherein a key included in the first management table information is the same as a key included in the third management table information, wherein a key included in the second management table information is the same as a key included in the fourth management table information, and wherein a hash value included in the third management table information and a hash value included in the fourth management table information are values calculated using a hash function of the (k+1)-th management table. (Examiner notes that Claim 2 does not have patentable weight as an intended use statement)
Claim 4 Jin teaches Claim 2, and further teaches wherein the first hash table information and the second hash table information include a hash value obtained by hashing a key with a hash function, a value, and a collision bit, and wherein the first hash table information and the second hash table information do not include a key. (Examiner notes that Claim 2 does not have patentable weight as an intended use statement)
Claim 5 Jin teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the (k+1)-th management table and the (k+1)-th hash table exist when k is less than n. (See 112b rejection for Claim 1, K is not an integer, thus the comparison being made is unclear; further as N is a undefined variable and thus can be any number, it is obvious that N can be any number greater than another other number)
Claim 6 Jin teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first management table information includes a value and a collision bit. (¶0002, wherein the cells store respective collision elements, i.e. collision bits, and where these bits are values)
Claim 7 Jin teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein a hash function of the k-th management table is the same as a hash function of the k-th hash table. (Jin, ¶0020, wherein the hash function is the same for the management and hash tables)
Claim 8 Jin teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein attempting to add the table information comprises:
adding the first management table information to the k-th management table and adding third hash table information to the k-th hash table (Jin, ¶0006, generating tables and hash values, Examiner notes that the third hash table information has not been distinguished in anyways and so be read as generic hash table information) when the second management table information having the same hash value as the hash value included in the first management table information is not present in the k-th management table. (Examiner notes that Claim 8 does not have patentable weight as an intended use statement; in particular Examiner notes that Claim 8 with Claim 1 does not cover all possible continencies, as the second management table information may not have the same hash value as the hash value indicated in the first management table information)
Claim 10 Jin teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein a hash function of the k-th hash table and a hash function of the (k+1)-th hash table are independent of each other, (Jin, ¶0020, wherein there are multiple hash functions) and wherein a hash function of the k-th management table and a has function of the (k+1)-th management table are independent of each other. (See 112b rejection for Claim 1, K is not a variable, it is an index and therefore the claim is unclear when attempting to use K to referenced specific elements; Furthermore, Examiner notes that table data is innately independent of each other)
Claim 11 is taught by Jin as described for Claim 1.
Claim 12 is taught by Jin as described for Claim 2.
Claim 13 is taught by Jin as described for Claim 3.
Claim 14 is taught by Jin as described for Claim 4.
Claim 15 is taught by Jin as described for Claim 5.
Claim 16 is taught by Jin as described for Claim 6.
Claim 17 is taught by Jin as described for Claim 7.
Claim 18 is taught by Jin as described for Claim 8.
Claim 20 is taught by Jin as described for Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
3. Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 20170078200 A1) in view of Sano (US 20210111922 A1).
Claim 9 Jin teaches Claim 8, but does not explicitly teach wherein a collision bit included in the first management table information and a collision bit included in the third hash table information are set to 0.
From a related technology, Sano teaches wherein a collision bit included in the first management table information and a collision bit included in the third hash table information are set to 0. (Sano, ¶0070, wherein the collision bit is set to 0)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jin to incorporate table values taught in Sano in order to more effectively processes network resources.
Claim 19 is taught by Jin in view of Sano as described for Claim 9.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PALACA CADORNA whose telephone number is (571)270-0584. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P CADORNA/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights