DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The instant application having Application Number 19/258,607 filed on July 2, 2025 has a total of 10 claims pending in the application; there are 3 independent claims and 7 dependent claims, all of which are presented for examination by the examiner.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, supports are shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 07/02/2025 and 06/26/2026 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1, line 2 and claim 6, line 2 needs a “:” at the end of the line. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claims 1, 9, and 10:
Step 1 Analysis:
Claim 1 recites “A system …”; therefore, the claim is a machine.
Claim 9 recites “A method…”, the claim recites a series of steps and therefore is process.
Claim 10 recites “A computer readable medium”, therefore the claim is a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites limitations directed to an abstract idea, including mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language. In particular, the following limitations are directed to an abstract idea:
A data storage system that stores data that is lossy compressed comprising
a lossy compression device that comprises processing circuitry:
to decide smoothness according to the rarity of an event indicated by subject data, as subject smoothness; and
to generate smoothed subject data by smoothing the subject data with the subject smoothness.
This limitation is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “processing circuitry”, “computer readable medium”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the “deciding” and “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper writing the changes down on a sheet of paper and examine the list to determine the relevant ones (rationale).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional steps: the “deciding” and “generating” steps mount to data gathering which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and the “generating” step is considered as a mere instruction to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer and/or no more than an idea of a solution or outcome on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activities identified above, which include the data-gathering and the step of “deciding” and “generating” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Independent claims 9 and 10 have the similar limitations as claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2. The data storage system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry calculates either an occurrence probability of a data point indicated by the subject data or an occurrence probability of a label assigned to the subject data, as the rarity of an event indicated by the subject data.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3. The data storage system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry decides the subject smoothness using data that indicates a relation between the rarity of an event indicated by the subject data and smoothness.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4. The data storage system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry smoothens the subject using a weight that becomes larger as an event indicated by the subject data becomes rarer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5. The data storage system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry extracts a plurality of singular points from the smoothed subject data and generates singular point data that consists of the extracted plurality of singular points, the data storage system further comprises a plurality of effective utilization databases which are candidates for a storage location for the singular point data, a computational resource of each of the plurality of effective utilization databases is different from each other, and the processing circuitry selects an effective utilization database from the plurality of effective utilization databases, as the storage location for the singular point data, and ensures that the singular point data is stored in the effective utilization database with more computational resources as the utilization value of the singular point data becomes higher.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6. The data storage system according to claim 1further comprising a client device that comprises a temporary storage area that stores temporary storage data by associating it with the rarity of an event indicated by the temporary storage data, wherein the processing circuitry determines whether or not to store the subject data in the temporary storage area based on a result of comparing the rarity of an event indicated by the subject data with the rarity of the event indicated by the temporary storage data, and the lossy compression device is communicatively connected to the client device.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7. The data storage system according to claim1further comprising a long-term storage database to store the subject data that is lossless compressed.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8. The data storage system according to claim 1, wherein the subject data is time series data that indicates a measurement result of a sensor.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US Patent Publication No. 6,285,775, ‘Wu’, hereafter) in view of Aggrawal et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2009/0003694, ‘Aggrawal’, hereafter).
Regarding claim 1. Wu teaches a data storage system that stores data that is lossy compressed comprising a lossy compression device that comprises processing (Wu, Col 4, line 65 – Col 5, line 16) circuitry:
Wu does not teach
to decide smoothness according to the rarity of an event indicated by subject data, as subject smoothness; and
to generate smoothed subject data by smoothing the subject data with the subject smoothness.
However, Aggrawal teaches
to decide smoothness according to the rarity of an event indicated by subject data, as subject smoothness (Aggrawal [0029-0031], [0080-0081]); and
to generate smoothed subject data by smoothing the subject data with the subject smoothness (Aggrawal [0029-0031], [0080-0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made having the teachings of Wu and Aggrawal before him/her, to modify Wu with the teaching of Aggrawal’s automatic coloring of pixels exposed during manipulation of image regions. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of assigning color values to the exposed pixels that are similar to those of the surrounding pixels so that the exposed regions blend smoothly with the surrounding region (Aggrawal, Abstract, [0011]).
Regarding claim 2. Wu as modified teaches the data storage system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry calculates either an occurrence probability of a data point indicated by the subject data or an occurrence probability of a label assigned to the subject data, as the rarity of an event indicated by the subject data (Wu, Col 11, lines 19-48).
Regarding claim 3. Wu as modified teaches the data storage system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry decides the subject smoothness using data that indicates a relation between the rarity of an event indicated by the subject data and smoothness (Wu, Col 11, lines 19-48).
Regarding claim 4. Wu as modified teaches the data storage system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry smoothens the subject using a weight that becomes larger as an event indicated by the subject data becomes rarer (Wu, Col 11, line 50–Col 12, line 22).
Regarding claim 9. Wu teaches the method of claim 9. The method steps of claim 9 are similar in scope to claim 1. The device steps of claim 1 substantially encompass the method recited in claim 9. Therefore; claim 9 is rejected for at least the same reason as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10. Wu as modified teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a data storage program for causing a lossy compression device which is a computer included in a data storage system that stores data that is lossy compressed (Aggrawal [0047], [0062-0064]) to execute:
although claim 10 directed to a medium, it is similar in scope to claim 1. The device steps of claim 1 substantially encompass the medium recited in claim 10. Therefore; claim 10 is rejected for at least the same reason as claim 1 above.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US Patent Publication No. 6,285,775, ‘Wu’, hereafter) in view of Aggrawal et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2009/0003694, ‘Aggrawal’, hereafter) and further in view of Ma et al. (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN115078892B, ‘Ma’, hereafter).
Regarding claim 7. Wu and Aggrawal do not teach that the data storage system according to claim 1 further comprising a long-term storage database to store the subject data that is lossless compressed.
However, Ma teaches that the data storage system according to claim 1 further comprising a long-term storage database to store the subject data that is lossless compressed (Ma [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made having the teachings of Wu, Aggrawal and Ma before him/her, to further modify Wu with the teaching of Ma’s single-machine large-transmission frequency converter state remote monitoring system. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of faster transmission speed, no transmission (Ma, Abstract, [0003]).
Regarding claim 8. Wu as modified teaches the data storage system according to claim 1, wherein the subject data is time series data that indicates a measurement result of a sensor (Ma [0007]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcome any objection and/or any rejection of the claims.
If the Applicant agreed to the allowable subject matter, Examiner respectfully request the Applicant to make the similar modification to the other independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Bostrom et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2002/0044695 A1) discloses a method for lossy compression of digitized images involves wavelet transformation, extension of image dimension factors with allocation to memory, and discrete wavelet transformation.
Alakuijala et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2023/0141888 A1) discloses a method for partitioning a block of an image to reduce quantization artifacts includes estimating an expected entropy of the block; partitioning the block into sub-blocks, where each sub-block having a size of a smallest possible partition size; calculating respective amounts of visual masking for the sub-blocks; selecting, as a visual masking characteristic of the block, a highest visual masking value of the respective amounts of visual masking for the sub-blocks; combining the visual masking characteristic of the block and the expected entropy of the block to obtain a splitting indicator value; and determining whether to split the block based on the splitting indicator.
Chou et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2003/0035586 A1) discloses image data encoded in accordance with a block transform coding scheme may be processed by estimating from the encoded image data a discontinuity threshold for detecting artificial edges introduced by the block transform coding scheme. Once the encoded image data is decoded, differences between pairs of pixels disposed along a block boundary of the decoded image may be determined. If the difference between a given pair of pixels is less than the discontinuity threshold, the given pair of pixels may be adjusted to reduce the difference below a visibility threshold, thereby improving the quality of the decoded image by reducing or eliminating blocking artifacts.
Huang et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2022/0131553 A1) discloses aspects relate to compression of messages in a wireless communication system. For messages, such as ACK/NACK feedback in a communication system, messages having an occurrence above or below a certain number of events (e.g., ACK/NACK events) or a probability of the occurrence may be compressed into a single message. By compressing the messages into a single message, the overhead used to transmit such messages may be reduced.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASANUL MOBIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1289. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM to 6:00PM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HASANUL MOBIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights