DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patsilaras et al. (US 2020/0250101).
Regarding claim 1, Patsilaras et al. discloses an architecture in figures 1 and 5 that teaches: compression technique (para. 0034) including generating, by computer hardware (110, para. Para. 0020, 0022), a compressed data stream by compressing data using a data compression technique; wherein the compressed data stream is generated while enforcing one or more compression constraints (compression address aperture) for the compression technique; generating, by the computer hardware, a metadata frame (para. 0034, 0035) specifying the one or more compression constraints (see figure 1); and outputting, by the computer hardware, the compressed data stream including the metadata frame (see figures 1 and 5 and their descriptions).
Regarding claim 11, Patsilaras et al. discloses an architecture in figure 4 a decompression technique that teaches: in response to receiving a compressed data stream, checking, by computer hardware, the compressed data stream for a metadata frame; in response to detecting the metadata frame, detecting, by the computer hardware and from the metadata frame, one or more compression constraints enforced during generation of the compressed data stream; selecting a selected decompressor from a plurality of different decompressors based on the one or more compression constraints; and decompressing, by the computer hardware, the compressed data stream using the selected decompressor (see 0043, 0044,0045).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is similar to claim 1 in system format. Therefore claim 13 is rejected as well as rejected in claim 1, such as: Patsilaras et al. discloses an architecture in figures 1 and 5 that teaches: compression technique (para. 0034) including generating, by computer hardware (110, para. Para. 0020, 0022), a compressed data stream by compressing data using a data compression technique; wherein the compressed data stream is generated while enforcing one or more compression constraints (compression address aperture) for the compression technique; generating, by the computer hardware, a metadata frame (para. 0034, 0035) specifying the one or more compression constraints (see figure 1); and outputting, by the computer hardware, the compressed data stream including the metadata frame (see figures 1 and 5 and their descriptions).
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.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patsilaras et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sazawa (US 2019/0327343).
Regarding claim 3, Patsilaras fails to teaches one or more compression constraints includes using minimum or maximum match length.
While, Sazawa disclose an architecture that teach compressing character (same meaning as constraints) having a maximum matched length (para. 0080).
Therefore, it would be obvious to an ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to include Sazawa’s teaching into Patsilaras’s disclosure to meet the design’s needs.
Regarding claim 15, Patsilaras fails to teaches one or more compression constraints includes using minimum or maximum match length.
While, Sazawa disclose an architecture that teach compressing character (same meaning as constraints) having a maximum matched length (para. 0080).
Therefore, it would be obvious to an ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to include Sazawa’s teaching into Patsilaras’s disclosure to meet the design’s needs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, Patsilaras et al. considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest the objected features, such as: wherein the enforcing the one or more compression constraints includes using at least one of a minimum offset for a match candidate within a search buffer or a maximum offset for the match candidate within the search buffer.
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, Patsilaras et al. considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest the objected features, such as: wherein the enforcing the one or more compression constraints includes parsing at least a minimum number of literals in the data prior to accepting a match.
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, Patsilaras et al. considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest the objected features, such as: wherein the enforcing the one or more compression constraints includes restricting a number of repeated offsets.
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, Patsilaras et al. considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest the objected features, such as: wherein the enforcing the one or more compression constraints includes restricting use of an external dictionary for specifying match candidates.
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, Patsilaras et al. considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest the objected features, such as: wherein the enforcing the one or more compression constraints includes limiting a number of bits generated by an encoder.
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, Patsilaras et al. considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest the objected features, such as: wherein the enforcing the one or more compression constraints includes using a same entropy table for an encoder for a predetermined number of blocks.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, Patsilaras et al. considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest the objected features, such as: detecting the metadata frame for the compressed data stream; detecting the one or more compression constraints enforced while generating the compressed data stream from the metadata frame; and providing the compressed data stream to a selected decompressor of a plurality of decompressors, wherein the selected decompressor is selected based on the one or more compression constraints detected.
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, Patsilaras et al. considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest the objected features, such as: wherein the one or more compression constraints are specified as a decompression level; and wherein the generating the compressed data stream includes selecting a selected compressor from a plurality of compressors based on the decompression level and compressing the data using the selected compressor.
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, Patsilaras et al. considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest the objected features, such as: wherein each decompressor of the plurality of different decompressors is optimized for decompressing compressed data streams for a particular set of the one or more compression constraints.
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, Patsilaras et al. considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest the objected features, such as: wherein the enforcing the one or more compression constraints includes using at least one of a minimum offset for a match candidate within a search buffer or a maximum offset for the match candidate within the search buffer.
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, Patsilaras et al. considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest the objected features, such as: wherein the enforcing the one or more compression constraints includes parsing at least a minimum number of literals in the data prior to accepting a match.
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, Patsilaras et al. considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest the objected features, such as: wherein the enforcing the one or more compression constraints includes restricting a number of repeated offsets.
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, Patsilaras et al. considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest the objected features, such as: wherein the enforcing the one or more compression constraints includes restricting use of an external dictionary for specifying match candidates.
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, Patsilaras et al. considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest the objected features, such as: wherein the enforcing the one or more compression constraints includes limiting a number of bits generated by an encoder.
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, Patsilaras et al. considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest the objected features, such as: wherein the enforcing the one or more compression constraints includes using a same entropy table for an encoder for a predetermined number of blocks.
Cited References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited references are related to instant application subject matters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM T MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-1807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-2pm eastern time.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at 571 272-2105. 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.
/LAM T MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights