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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 are pending in this action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/26/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In analyzing under step 1, is the claim to a process, machine manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
In analyzing under step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes.
The claim(s) 1 and 9 recite(s) the abstract limitations such as “dividing the first data word into at least one portion; comparing each of the at least one portion of the first data word with at least one corresponding portion of the at least one second data word by using, for each comparison, a first lookup table; and comparing one or more results from comparing each of the at least one portion of the first data word with at least one corresponding portion of the at least one second data word by using a second lookup table” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation under mathematical processes but for the recitation of generic computer processor such as “an electronic device” “ (see claim 9).
Claim 2 recites “the first data word is divided…” is based on mathematical process and therefore it does not overcome abstract rejection.
Claim 3 recites “…result of the first lookup tables is a third binary word” is based on mathematical process and therefore it does not overcome abstract rejection.
Claim 4-6 recite a description of binary word comprising bits and therefore it does not overcome abstract rejection.
Claims 7-8 recites a method of comparing based on mathematical process and therefore it does not overcome abstract rejection.
Other dependent claims 10-16 recite similar limitations as claims 2-8 and therefore it does not overcome abstract rejection.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mathematical but for the recitation of generic computer components and software module, then it falls within the “Mathematical Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The computer electronic device can (1) divide a first data word into one portion or two portions then (2) compare a portion of first word with a portion of the second word and (3) compare result with lookup table.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract limitation.
In analyzing under step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite a generic processor such as “an electronic device” for comparing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a generic processor and software module which are high level of comparing. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In analyzing under step 2B, does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO
Claims 1-16 do not recite any additional elements except a generic processor such as “an electronic device” for comparing. Accordingly, the additional generic elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a generic processor and software module which are high level of generality comparing words.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-7, 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hameed (US 2025/0,103,285), in view of Kim et al. (US 2025/0,069,538)
As per claim 1:
As per claim 9:
Hameed discloses:
A method of implementation of a test of comparison of a first data word with at least one second data word, comprising:
An electronic device adapted to implementing a test of comparison of a first data word with at least one second data word, comprising:
(Figs 1-10)
(Hameed, Abstract, Control logic is configured to compare a first portion of a search item to the first portion of each list item in each first word; … compare a second portion of the search item to the second portion of each list item stored in each second word corresponding to each matching first word;…)
dividing the first data word into at least one portion;
(Hameed, Fig 8A, Receiving a search item 804)
(Hameed, Fig 8A, Splitting the search item into at least a first portion and a second portion 806)
comparing each of the at least one portion of the first data word with at least one corresponding portion of the at least one second data word by
(Hameed, Fig 8A, comparing the first portion of the search item to each portion of each list item in each first word 808)
(Hameed, [0047] At 808, method 800 includes comparing the first portion of the search item to each first portion of each list item in each first word…)
comparing one or more results from comparing each of the at least one portion of the first data word with at least one corresponding portion of the at least one second data word by
(Hameed, [0047] …At 812, method 800 includes comparing the second portion of the search item to each second portion of each list item stored in each second word…)
Hameed does not disclose:
using a first or a second lookup table.
Kim discloses:
using a first or a second lookup table.
(Kim [0111] … may store a plurality of first comparison results in the form of a lookup table)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a well-known method of Kim’s lookup table into the system as one of the method of storing comparison result in a table.
(Kim [0111] … may store a plurality of first comparison results in the form of a lookup table)
As per claim 2:
As per claim 10:
Hameed-Kim further disclose:
wherein during dividing, the first data word is divided into at least one portion.
(Hameed, Fig 8A, Receiving a search item 804)
(Hameed, Fig 8A, Splitting the search item into at least a first portion and a second portion 806)
As per claim 3:
As per claim 11:
Hameed-Kim further disclose:
wherein each result of the first lookup tables is a third binary word.
(Kim [0111] … may store a plurality of first comparison results in the form of a lookup table)
As per claim 4:
As per claim 12:
Hameed-Kim further disclose:
wherein the third binary word comprises a bit.
(Kim [0111] … may store a plurality of first comparison results in the form of a lookup table)
As per claim 5:
As per claim 13:
Hameed-Kim further disclose:
wherein the third binary word comprises at least two bits.
(Kim [0111] … may store a plurality of first comparison results in the form of a lookup table)
As per claim 6:
As per claim 14:
Hameed-Kim further disclose:
wherein each of the at least one portion of the first data word comprises at least two bits; and each of the at least one corresponding portion of the at least one second data word comprises at least two bits.
(Hameed, Fig 8A, comparing the first portion of the search item to each portion of each list item in each first word 808)
(Hameed, [0047] At 808, method 800 includes comparing the first portion of the search item to each first portion of each list item in each first word…)
As per claim 7:
As per claim 15:
Hameed-Kim further disclose:
wherein the test is selected from a group comprising:
a logic equality test, a logic “greater than”-type test, a logic “greater than or equal to”-type test, a logic “less than”-type test, a logic “less than or equal to”-type test, a logic “is between”-type test, a test of a divisibility of an integer by another integer, a logic test concerning a Hamming weight of a binary data item, and any combination of one or a plurality of these above tests with one another.
(Hameed control logic 502 may be implemented in hardware (e.g., registers, comparators…)
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hameed (US 2025/0,103,285), in view of Kim et al. (US 2025/0,069,538), in view of Jang et al. (US 2022/0,178,997)
As per claim 8:
As per claim 16:
Hameed-Kim further disclose:
wherein the one or more results from comparing each of the at least one portion of the first data word with at least one corresponding portion of the at least one second data word
(Hameed, [0047] At 808, method 800 includes comparing the first portion of the search item to each first portion of each list item in each first word…)
(Hameed, [0047] …At 812, method 800 includes comparing the second portion of the search item to each second portion of each list item stored in each second word…)
Hameed-Kim further does not disclose:
are concatenated into a fourth data word to be compared by using the second lookup table.
Jang discloses:
are concatenated into a fourth data word to be compared by using the second lookup table.
(Jang [0098]… the logic generation/determination device of the test device (e.g., logic generation/determination device 112) may determine a logic state of the test result Res_T based on combining comparison results of the first, second, third, and fourth (e.g., first through fourth) comparators COM1 to COM4)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a well-known method of Jang’s method of performing final comparison by combining comparison results in order to speed up the comparison process.
(Jang [0098]… the logic generation/determination device of the test device (e.g., logic generation/determination device 112) may determine a logic state of the test result Res_T based on combining comparison results of the first, second, third, and fourth (e.g., first through fourth) comparators COM1 to COM4)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN DANG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM - 3:30 PM.
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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at 571-270-3750. 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.
/Thien Nguyen/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111