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 § 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 “attempting to add management table information to a first management table.” The claim is not clear because the term “attempting” is ambiguous, specifically to (1) whether the scope covers the attempt failing to add management table information and (2) what are the necessary actions to teach performing an attempt. The claim should be drafted in certain terms in order to clearly reflect the claimed scope.
As such the claim should recite “adding management table information,” i.e. eliminating the uncertainty entirely, or alternatively specify the step that is positively performed, with the tacit understanding that may or may not result in the adding of management table information.
The claim similarly recites “attempting to add table information to the k-th management table and a k-th hash table or to a (k+1)-th management table and a (k+1)-th hash table based on the determination result, wherein table information attempted to add to the k-th hash table and the (k+1)-th hash table does not include a key” which is indefinite for the same reasons.
For purposes of examination, Examiner notes that the claim does not depend upon the addition of information to tables, and therefore interprets “attempting to” as including nominal, non-functional or even non-material acts (such as pure mental intent) which would have no patentable weight.
Claims 2-20 are rejected for depending up Claim 1 or for reasons identical to Claim 1.
Claim 1 also recites “determining whether second management table information having the same hash value as a hash value included in first management table information.” The claim is unclear as to the relationship between the first and second management tables and the “n management tables.” The claim should make clear (1) if these management tables are included within the “n” management tables, and (2) whether being the “first” and “second” management tables identifies them specifically as n=1 and n=2 management tables.
Claim 1 similarly refers to a first hash table which needs to have its relationship explicitly established to the “n hash tables.”
Claims 2-20 are rejected for depending up Claim 1 or for reasons identical to Claim 1.
Furthermore, Claim 1 recites “determining whether second management table information having the same hash value as a hash value included in first management table information” is unclear itself. Specifically, the claim is unclear as to how the process is intended to be perform. As Examiner understands, the step determines if there is a collision (i.e. duplication of values) of hash values between a second table, a first table, and a k-th table.
However, it is unclear whether or not the qualification that the “second management table information having the same value as a hash value included in first management table information” is (1) a limitation of the claim, if this is (2) part of what is being determined by the claimed method, or if this is (3) subject matter outside the scope of the claims.
Given that “the first management table information” is only recited as an having an intended use and is not explicitly materially present in the claims, Examiner interprets “second management table information having the same has value as a hash value included in first management table information” as being (3) outside the scope of the claims. As the “first management table information” can exist merely in an abstract form, i.e. not materially present in any management table.
As the first management table information is not present anywhere in the claims, it is unclear how the claim “determines” them having the same hash value.
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,
the method comprising:
attempting to (See 112(b) rejection, the claim is unclear whether the attempt must be successful, and therefore it is unclear what is necessary to teach attempting to add information; furthermore the claim appears to function independently of whether or not information is successfully added to the tables, as such the broadest reasonable interpretation is a failure to add information to the tables) add management table information to a first management table and attempting to add hash table information to a first hash table; (¶0006, generating a first and second table and first and second hash values)
determining whether second management table information is present in a k-th management table, (FIG. 4B, Step 428, ¶0048, determining whether has values in a first table are present within another table) the second management table information having the same hash value as a hash value included in first management table information, wherein the first management table information is information to be added to the k-th management table, (See 112(b), Examiner notes that “first management table information” only exists in relation to an intended use statement, and unclear how this can be determined) and
attempting to (See 112(b) rejection, the claim is unclear whether the attempt must be successful, and therefore it is unclear what is necessary to teach attempting to add information; furthermore the claim appears to function independently of whether or not information is successfully added to the tables, as such the broadest reasonable interpretation is a failure to add information to the tables) add table information to the k-th management table and a k-th hash table or to a (k+1)-th management table and a (k+1)-th hash table based on the determination result, wherein table information attempted to add to the k-th hash table and the (k+1)-th hash table does not include a key. (FIG. 4B, ¶0049, generating additional hash values for the tables, Examiner interprets this as “attempting to”)
Claim 2 Jin teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein attempting to add the table information comprises:
attempting to add third management table information and fourth management table information to the (k+1)-th management table and attempting to add first hash table information and second hash table information to the (k+1)-th hash table, (See 112(b) rejection, the claim is unclear whether the attempt must be successful, and therefore it is unclear what is necessary to teach attempting to add information; furthermore the claim appears to function independently of whether or not information is successfully added to the tables, as such the broadest reasonable interpretation is a failure to add information to 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 in the k-th management table. (Examiner notes that “when the…” comprises an intended uses statement and therefore the claim does not have patentable weight)
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 k is an integer having a range equal to or greater than 2 and less than n. (Jin, ¶0023, wherein there are one or more tables, which includes a range equal to or granter than 2 and less an arbitrary number)
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)
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 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 6, 9, 16, 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 6 Jin teaches Claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first management table information includes a key, a hash value obtained by hashing a key with a hash function, a value, and a collision bit.
From a related field of technology, Sano teaches wherein a first management table information includes a key, a hash value obtained by hashing a key with a hash function, a value, and a collision bit. (Sano, FIG. 5, ¶0070, wherein the table includes a key, a hash value, and a collision bit)
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 9 Jin teaches Claim 8, and further 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 16 is taught by Jin in view of Sano as described for Claim 6.
Claim 19 is taught by Jin in view of Sano as described for Claim 9.
Conclusion
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