DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claim rejections based on prior art
Applicant’s argument filed 06/15/2026 with respect to claims 1-3, 5-21 and 23-24 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new interpretation of the cited reference based on most recent amendment.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Double Patenting
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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, approved immediately upon submission, and reduces waiting time for Terminal Disclaimer to be manually approved. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3, 5-21 and 23-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over the claims of 1-23 of U.S. Pat. No. 11,586,380 and claims of 1-20 of U.S. Pat. No. 11,636,285, since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in patents. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is at least fully disclosed in the reference patents.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
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.
2. Claims 1-3, 5-21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US pub. # 2020/0301961), hereinafter, “Huang”, in view of Hoang et al. (US pub. # 2021/0192325), hereinafter, “Hoang”,
3. As per claim 1, Huang discloses a method comprising: responsive to a request (an image retrieval instruction from a terminal, as disclose in paragraphs 0038-0040) to calculate a Hamming distance among a plurality of images (candidate images, as discloses in paragraph 0118) and a target image (a reference image) associated with an image code (a hash value) received from a host computing device (a terminal, as disclose in paragraphs 0039 and 0095) (see paragraph 0118, which discloses “the retrieval server respectively calculates, according to the hash value of the reference image and the hash values of the candidate images, a hamming distance between the reference image and each candidate image” and paragraph 0120, which discloses “a plurality of candidate images may be located according to a hash value segment of the reference image. Therefore, in step S308, the hamming distance between the reference image and each located candidate image needs to be calculated respectively”), providing at least one memory access request (a retrieval request; see fig. 4 and paragraph 0098, which discloses “the application server transmits a retrieval request to the retrieval server, the retrieval request carrying the hash value of the reference image”) to a plurality of memory devices (a first memory device is equated to a first slave server 4122 of fig. 4 combined with the database 413, and a second memory device is equated to a second slave server 4122 combined with the database; see paragraph 0144, which discloses “the master server logically divides storage space of a database into a plurality of area sections, and allocates the plurality of area sections to the plurality of slave servers, so that each slave server in a normal running state is responsible for at least one area section” and paragraph 0126, which discloses “so the candidate images that may be similar to the reference image may be selected from the database”) to access information (information of target images, as discloses in paragraph 0184) associated with the plurality of images stored at the plurality of memory devices (see paragraph 0184, which discloses “the master server feeds back a retrieval result to the application server according to information of the target images returned by different slave servers”), wherein the at least one memory access request is provided (to forward) by at least one memory controller (retrieval server cluster 412 and application server 411, combined) to the plurality of memory devices (see paragraph 0098 and fig. 4, disclosing cluster 412 receiving the retrieval request from application server 411 and forwarding it with hash values to database 413, part of the devices) via a respective memory bus (a ‘respective memory bus’ is being equated to the path between application server 411 and server cluster 412. See paragraph 0098 disclosing the retrieval request traveling from application server to server cluster 412. Note, claim language doesn’t disclose the exact location of the bus); and calculating a respective Hamming distance of a plurality of Hamming distances by comparing an image of the plurality of images to the image code (see paragraphs 0056 and 0182).
Huang fails to specifically disclose wherein the memory bus is a PCIe bus configured
to operate in accordance with a Non-Volatile Memory Express (NVMe) protocol.
Hoang discloses wherein the memory bus is a PCIe bus configured to operate in accordance with a Non-Volatile Memory Express (NVMe) protocol [see paragraph 0042, which discloses “Controller 102 communicates with host 120 via an interface 130 that implements NVM Express (NVMe) over PCI Express (PCIe)”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hoang’s teaching of a non-volatile memory device comprising a plurality of non-volatile memory cells configured to store a plurality of ternary valued weights of one or more filters of a convolutional neural network, into Huang’s teaching of a storage medium for image retrieval to reduce a data processing amount during an image retrieval process and improve image retrieval efficiency, for the benefit of reducing power consumption of an in-memory convolution operation.
4. As per claims 2 and 12, the combination of Huang and Hoang discloses “The method of claim 1” [See rejection to claim 1 above], further comprising receiving the request to calculate the Hamming distance via a host bus (path, connection, between terminal 420 and application server 411 of Huang. See also paragraphs 0039 and 0095 of Huang, which teach about terminal, client 200, 420).
5. As per claims 3 and 13, Huang discloses, further comprising receiving the request to calculate the Hamming distance at Hamming control logic (retrieval server cluster 412; see paragraphs 0039 and 0136, particularly paragraph 0136, which discloses “the retrieval server cluster 412 includes a master server 4121 and a plurality of slave servers 4122” and paragraph 0182, which discloses “the master server calculates the hamming distance between the reference image and each candidate image”).
6. As per claims 5 and 15, Huang discloses, further comprising generating the image code based on the target image using a hash (see paragraph 0048).
7. As per claims 6 and 16, Huang discloses, further comprising receiving the image from an Internet of Things (IoT) computing device (see paragraph 0039).
8. As per claims 7 and 17, Huang discloses wherein the IoT computing device comprises at least one of a camera, a smartphone device, or an image capture device (see paragraph 0035).
9. As per claims 8 and 18, Huang discloses wherein the Hamming processing request is generated based on a neural network request to obtain image processing results using the plurality of Hamming distances (see paragraph 0053).
10. As per claims 9 and 19, Huang discloses, further comprising accessing, from the plurality of memory devices, a respective image code for an image of the plurality of images as the information associated with the plurality of images (see paragraphs 0180 and 00188).
11. As per claims 10 and 20, Huang discloses, further comprising hashing the at least one image of the plurality of images to generate at least one hashed image code for that respective image to calculate the respective Hamming distance of the plurality of Hamming distances (see paragraphs 0180 and 00188).
12. As per claim 11, Huang discloses an apparatus (image retrieval system 410 of fig. 4) comprising: Hamming control logic circuitry (retrieval server cluster 412; see paragraphs 0039 and 0136) (see paragraph 0136, which discloses “the retrieval server cluster 412 includes a master server 4121 and a plurality of slave servers 4122” and paragraph 0182, which discloses “the master server calculates the hamming distance between the reference image and each candidate image”) configured to, responsive to a request (an image retrieval instruction from a terminal, as disclose in paragraphs 0038-0040) to calculate a Hamming distance among a plurality of images (candidate images, as discloses in paragraph 0118) and a target image (a reference image) associated with an image code (a hash value) received from a host computing device (terminal 420) (see paragraph 0118, which discloses “the retrieval server respectively calculates, according to the hash value of the reference image and the hash values of the candidate images, a hamming distance between the reference image and each candidate image” and paragraph 0120, which discloses “a plurality of candidate images may be located according to a hash value segment of the reference image. Therefore, in step S308, the hamming distance between the reference image and each located candidate image needs to be calculated respectively”), provide at least one memory access request (a retrieval request, as discloses in paragraph 0098) to a plurality of memory devices (a first memory device is equated to a first slave server 4122 of fig. 4 combined with the database 413, and a second memory device is equated to a second slave server 4122 combined with the database; see paragraph 0144, which discloses “the master server logically divides storage space of a database into a plurality of area sections, and allocates the plurality of area sections to the plurality of slave servers, so that each slave server in a normal running state is responsible for at least one area section” and paragraph 0126, which discloses “so the candidate images that may be similar to the reference image may be selected from the database”) to access information (information of target images, as discloses in paragraph 0184) associated with the plurality of images stored at the plurality of memory devices (see paragraph 0184, which discloses “the master server feeds back a retrieval result to the application server according to information of the target images returned by different slave servers”), wherein the Hamming control logic circuitry is configured to provide the at least one memory access request to the plurality of memory devices via at least one memory controller (retrieval server cluster 412 and application server 411, combined) coupled to the plurality of memory devices (see paragraph 0098 and fig. 4, disclosing cluster 412 receiving the retrieval request from application server 411 and forwarding it with hash values to database 413, part of the devices) via a respective memory bus (a ‘respective memory bus’ is being equated to the path between application server 411 and server cluster 412. See paragraph 0098 disclosing the retrieval request traveling from application server to server cluster 412. Note, claim language doesn’t disclose the exact location of the bus), and wherein the Hamming control logic circuitry is further configured to calculate a respective Hamming distance of a plurality of Hamming distances by comparing an image of the plurality of images to the image code (see paragraphs 0056 and 0182).
13. As per claim 14, Huang discloses further comprising a processor including the hamming control logic circuitry (see fig. 8 and paragraph 0215).
14. As per claim 21, Huang discloses wherein the respective Hamming distance is calculated using the at least one memory controller (see paragraph 0182, which discloses “the master server calculates the hamming distance between the reference image and each candidate image”), at least one memory device of the plurality of memory devices, or a processing unit that includes the plurality of memory devices.
15. As per claim 23, Huang discloses wherein the respective Hamming distance is calculated at the at least one memory controller (retrieval server cluster 412 and application server 411, combined; see paragraphs 0056 and 0182).
16. As per claim 24, Huang discloses wherein the Hamming control logic circuitry (retrieval server cluster 412) is within the at least one memory controller (retrieval server cluster 412 and application server 411, combined).
CLOSING COMMENTS
Conclusion
a. STATUS OF CLAIMS IN THE APPLICATION
The following is a summary of the treatment and status of all claims in the application as recommended by M.P.E.P. 707.07(i):
a(1) CLAIMS REJECTED IN THE APPLICATION
Per the instant office action, claims 1-3, 5-21 and 23-24 have received a final action on the merits.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
b. DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ernest Unelus whose telephone number is (571) 272-8596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
IMPORTANT NOTE
If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Mr. Idriss Alrobaye, can be reached at the following telephone number: Area Code (571) 270-1023.
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).
/Ernest Unelus/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2181
Prosecution Insights