Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 has/have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection [see applicant’s arguments pg. 5 last paragraph, pg. 6 L. 1-17, pg. 7].
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US-11,256,422).
In regards to claim 1, Suzuki teaches a system for compressing and restoring data [fig. 1, col. 2 L. 23-25 and L. 35-40]. Suzuki teaches that the system comprises a computing device comprising at least a memory and a processor [fig. 1 elements 111 and 112, col. 2 L. 35-40]. Furthermore, Suzuki teaches that the system comprises an encoding module that compresses telemetry data received from a sensor [col. 2 L. 32-34, col. 3 L. 18-22 and L. 33-34-36, col. 4 L. 3-6, col. 5 L. 37-39, col. 6 L. 19-27]. This teaching means that the system comprises a telemetry encoding module comprising a first plurality of programming instructions stored in the memory and operable on the processor, wherein the first plurality of programming instructions, when operating on the processor, cause the computing device to compress telemetry data to create compressed telemetry data and generate a bitstream of the compressed telemetry data. Also, Suzuki teaches that the system can decompress the compressed data when telemetry data is requested by a client [col. 3 L. 18-22, col. 7 L. 30-32]. This teaching means that the system comprises a telemetry decoding module comprising a second plurality of programming instructions stored in the memory and operable on the processor, wherein the second plurality of programming instructions, when operating on the processor, cause the computing device to receive the bitstream of compressed telemetry data; apply the bitstream of compressed telemetry data as input to the telemetry decoding module; and decompress the bitstream of compressed telemetry data to generate a reconstructed version of the telemetry data.
In regards to claim 11, Suzuki, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches a system performing the claimed functions of the claimed method. Therefore, Suzuki also teaches the claimed method.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 12-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US-11,256,422) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Maile et al. (US-2025/0131254).
In regards to claim 2, Suzuki, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the telemetry encoding module implements a neural network to compress the telemetry data [col. 3 L. 34-36, col. 6 L. 27]. This teaching means that the telemetry encoding module comprises programming instructions that when operating on the processor cause the processor to implement a neural network. However, Suzuki does not teach that the neural network is a transformer-based neural network (TBNN).
On the other hand, Maile teaches that compression of telemetry data can be accomplished by implementing a TBNN [par. 0007 L. 1-4, par. 0024 L. 1-6, par. 0025 L. 1-5, par. 0034]. This teaching means that the telemetry encoding module further comprises programming instructions that when operating on the processor, cause the processor to implement a transformer-based neural network (TBNN).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Maile’s teachings of compressing the telemetry data using a TBNN in the system taught by Suzuki because TBNN provides a reliable compression method.
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Suzuki and Maile, as applied in the rejection of claim 2 above, further teaches that the telemetry encoding module further comprises programming instructions that when operating on the processor, cause the processor to implement an embedding layer within the TBNN [see Maile fig. 2 element 162, par. 0050 L. 1-5].
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Suzuki and Maile, as applied in the rejection of claim 3 above, further teaches that the telemetry encoding module further comprises programming instructions that when operating on the processor, cause the processor to implement an attention mechanism within the TBNN [see Maile fig. 2 element 164, par. 0050 L. 6-7, par. 0053 L. 1-4, par. 0054 L. 1-6].
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Suzuki and Maile, as applied in the rejection of claim 2 above, further teaches that the compression of the telemetry data can be a lossless compression [see Suzuki col. 6 L. 39-40, col. 10 L. 7-11], and that compression can be implemented using the TBNN [see Maile par. 0034]. These teachings mean that the telemetry encoding module further comprises programming instructions that when operating on the processor, cause the processor to perform lossless compression on data output from the TBNN.
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Suzuki and Maile, as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Suzuki and Maile, as shown in the rejection of claim 3 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Suzuki and Maile, as shown in the rejection of claim 4 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Suzuki and Maile, as shown in the rejection of claim 6 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US-11,256,422) in view of Maile et al. (US-2025/0131254) as applied to claim(s) 4 and 14 above, and further in view of Oh et al. (US-11,874,013).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Suzuki and Maile, as applied in the rejection of claim 4 above, teaches a TBNN to compress data [see Maile fig. 2, par. 0031]. However, the combination does not teach that the TBNN comprises one or more feed-forward layers.
On the other hand, Oh teaches that a TBNN can comprise a feed forward layer in order to pass information to the next attention mechanism [fig. 7, col. 14 L. 31-32, col. 15 L. 44-55].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Oh’s teachings of implementing a feed forward layer in the TBNN in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the TBNN to have multiple attention mechanisms to better process the data and pass the information between the attention mechanisms.
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Suzuki, Maile and Oh, as shown in the rejection of claim 5 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 7-10 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US-11,256,422) in view of Maile et al. (US-2025/0131254) as applied to claim(s) 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Parkinson et al. (US-8,112,624).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Suzuki and Maile, as applied in the rejection of claim 6 above, further teaches that the compression of telemetry data is lossless compression [see Suzuki col. 6 L. 39-40, col. 10 L. 7-11]. However, the combination does not teaches that the lossless compression is done using arithmetic coding.
On the other hand, Parkinson teaches that it is well-known in the art that one lossless compression method is arithmetic coding [col. 4 L. 41-51].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Parkinson’s teachings of using arithmetic coding for lossless compression in the system taught by the combination because that method provides reliable lossless data compression.
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Suzuki and Maile, as applied in the rejection of claim 6 above, further teaches that the compression of telemetry data is lossless compression [see Suzuki col. 6 L. 39-40, col. 10 L. 7-11]. However, the combination does not teaches that the lossless compression is done using Huffman coding.
On the other hand, Parkinson teaches that it is well-known in the art that one lossless compression method is Huffman coding [col. 4 L. 41-51].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Parkinson’s teachings of using Huffman coding for lossless compression in the system taught by the combination because that method provides reliable lossless data compression.
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Suzuki and Maile, as applied in the rejection of claim 6 above, further teaches that the compression of telemetry data is lossless compression [see Suzuki col. 6 L. 39-40, col. 10 L. 7-11]. However, the combination does not teaches that the lossless compression is done using block-sorting compression.
On the other hand, Parkinson teaches that it is well-known in the art that one lossless compression method is block-sorting compression [col. 4 L. 41-51].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Parkinson’s teachings of using block-sorting compression for lossless compression in the system taught by the combination because that method provides reliable lossless data compression.
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Suzuki and Maile, as applied in the rejection of claim 6 above, further teaches that the compression of telemetry data is lossless compression [see Suzuki col. 6 L. 39-40, col. 10 L. 7-11]. However, the combination does not teaches that the lossless compression is done using dictionary-based compression.
On the other hand, Parkinson teaches that it is well-known in the art that one lossless compression method is LZW compression (dictionary-based compression) [col. 4 L. 41-51].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Parkinson’s teachings of using dictionary-based compression for lossless compression in the system taught by the combination because that method provides reliable lossless data compression.
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Suzuki, Maile and Parkinson, as shown in the rejection of claim 7 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Suzuki, Maile and Parkinson, as shown in the rejection of claim 8 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Suzuki, Maile and Parkinson, as shown in the rejection of claim 10 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 20, the combination of Suzuki, Maile and Parkinson, as shown in the rejection of claim 9 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688