DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to communication filed on 06/29/2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-3 have been added. Claim 1-3 are pending on this application.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments over double patenting rejection with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of double patenting rejection (U.S. patent No. 11,362,672) does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,362,672. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,362,672 disclosed every limitation of applicant’s claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Maloney David WO 2009/101119.
Regarding claim 1. Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 of Maloney David discloses an apparatus (Fig. 3) , comprising: at least one processor (Processor Data Path) and at least one memory (18) configured to: retrieve a compressed data block (10; see Comp. memory in Fig. 4) and a map metadata (Bitmap in Fig. 4) the compressed data block (10; see Comp. memory in Fig. 4) comprising one or more words (1.0….16.0 in comp. memory of Fig. 4) and the map metadata (bitmap of Fig. 4) configured to map the words (1.0….16.0 in comp. memory of Fig. 4) of the compressed data block (10; see comp. memory of Fig. 4) to a generated decompressed data block (14; see uncompress. Memory in Fig. 4); and decompress (25) the compressed data block (10) to generate the decompressed data block (14; see uncompress. Memory in Fig. 4) in accordance with the map metadata (bitmap in Fig. 4), wherein the compressed data block (10) is compressed from an uncompressed data block (14) comprising a plurality of words (values of Uncomp. Memory) in Fig. 4) each word of the uncompressed data block (word of Uncomp. Memory in Fig. 4) being removable (removable 0.0 value of uncomp. Memory in Fig. 4) or non-removable (non-0.0 values comp. memory), the uncompressed data block (uncomp. memory in Fig. 4) having been compressed into the compressed data block (comp. memory in Fig. 4) by removing one or more removable words (0.0 values of uncomp. memory in Fig. 4) from the uncompressed data block (14; see uncompress. Memory in Fig. 4), and wherein each non-removable word (non-0.0 values comp. memory in Fig. 4) of the uncompressed data block (14; see uncompress. Memory in Fig. 4) is maintained without modifications in the compressed data block (non 0.0 values comp. memory in Fig. 4 such as 1.0…16.0 is the same as in uncomp. Memory in Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 2. The apparatus of claim 1, Fig. 4 further discloses wherein the map metadata (bitmap) map locations of each word (row and column location of 4x4 matrix) of the uncompressed data block (4x4 matrix data).
Regarding claim 3. (New) The apparatus of claim 1, Fig. 4 further discloses wherein a value of a removable word (0.0 value of 4x4 matrix) may be one of multiple removable values (multiples values of 4x4 matrix data), wherein an element of a map metadata (an element of bitmap) may comprise multiple bits (bits of 1 and bits of 0), and wherein a bit combination of the element (bit 0 and 1 combination of bitmap) indicates that a corresponding word (corresponding word of 4x4 matrix data) of the uncompressed data block (4x4 matrix data) is non-removable (non 0.0 values of 4x4 matrix data) or represents one particular value of the multiple removable value (0.0 values of 4x4 matrix data).
Conclusion
4. 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.
Contact Information
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Linh Van Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-1810. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:30 – 5:00 Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Dameon E. Levi can be reached at (571) 272-2105. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (571-273-8300) for regular communications and (571-273-8300) for After Final communications.
08/13/2026
/LINH V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights