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 § 112
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 uses the term “unique”, but this term can be interpreted a plurality of ways. A first interpretation is: “being the only one”. If this interpretation is used, then it is unclear why there would be a claim limitation tracking a number of occurrences of the unique sourceblock in the data stream, because each unique sourceblock will only have one occurrence. The second interpretation is “very special or notable”. Under this interpretation, it is unclear what makes a particular sourceblock special or notable among the other sourceblocks of the data stream. The specification does not appear to define what a unique sourceblock is.
Claim 1 contains the limitations: “collecting sourceblocks of a predetermined length from a data stream; maintaining integer counters to track occurrences of each unique sourceblock and a total number of occurrences;”. It is unclear what the term “total number of occurrences” is referring too. It is unclear if the total number of occurrence is the total number of all collected sourceblocks, total number of occurrences of a unique sourceblock, the total number of all unique sourceblocks combined or a total number of occurrences of something else. Further clarification is required.
Claim 1 contains the limitations: “calculating a sum of squared probabilities value using only integer operations by: performing integer multiplications of occurrence values, and normalizing by the square of the total occurrences using bit-shift operations;”. It is unclear what the term “occurrence values” is referring too. The occurrence value of what? Is this the integer counter value of each unique sourceblock, the total number of occurrences (See item 4 above) value or the occurrence values of something else? Further, it is unclear how these limitations result in a sum of squared probabilities value. It is unclear what the relationship is between the integer multiplications of occurrence values and the normalizing by the square of the total occurrences or how these two calculations result in the sum of squared probabilities value.
Claim 1 contains the limitations: “ determining a compaction factor by: identifying most significant bit positions in the calculated values, computing logarithmic approximations using bit manipulations, and normalizing by the sourceblock length using bit-shift operations; and estimating the compression performance of a potential codebook based on the determined compaction factor without codebook generation.”. The terms “the calculated values” and “the sourceblock length” lack antecedent basis. It is unclear what these two values are referring back too. It is further unclear what bits are being manipulated when computing logarithmic approximations. Next, it is unclear how the identifying, computing and normalizing steps relate to each other or how they result in a compaction factor. The claim language does not describe how the compaction factor is actually determined. Finally, the estimating step should not be indented under the “determining a compaction factor by:” limitation because the determined compaction factor is used in the estimating and therefore cannot be part of determining the compaction factor.
With respect to claim 2 it is unclear how a bit position and sourceblock length, which are two different parameters, are having their different taken.
Claims 8 and 9 has the same issues as claims 1 and 2 above. The dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon a rejected base claim.
Double Patenting
Due to the 112 rejections above, the claim language precludes a proper double patenting analysis. A proper double patenting analysis will be performed after clarification of the claim language.
Conclusion
The examiner has performed a complete search of the prior art based upon the inventive concept described in the specification.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ALSIP whose telephone number is (571)270-1182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Reginald G. Bragdon can be reached at (571)272-4204. 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.
/MICHAEL ALSIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2139
Prosecution Insights