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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/31/2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/31/2025 with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-22 have been fully considered but are moot in view of newly cited reference.
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 and 5-22 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 § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US pub. # 2020/0301961), hereinafter, “Huang”.
At the outset, Applicant is reminded that claims subject to examination will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). With this in mind, the discussion will focus on how the terms and relationships between the terms in the claims are met by the references.
2. 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, 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 at least one memory access request is provided (to forward) by at least one memory controller (master server 4121; see fig. 8 and paragraph 0215) via a respective memory bus (a ‘respective’ memory bus is being equated to a combined path between master server 4121 and ‘respective’ path to slave servers 4122, as disclosed in fig. 4); 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).
3. As per claims 2 and 12, Huang 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 (see paragraphs 0039 and 0095, which teach about terminal, client 200).
4. 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 and application server 411, combined; 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”).
5. 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).
6. As per claims 6 and 16, Huang discloses, further comprising receiving the image from an Internet of Things (IoT) computing device (see paragraph 0039).
7. 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).
8. 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).
9. 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).
10. 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).
11. As per claim 11, Huang discloses an apparatus (image retrieval system 410 of fig. 4) comprising: Hamming control logic circuitry (retrieval server cluster 412 and application server 411, combined; 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 (a terminal) (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 (master server 4121; see fig. 8 and paragraph 0215) coupled to the plurality of memory devices via a respective memory bus (a ‘respective’ memory bus is being equated to a combined path between master server 4121 and ‘respective’ path to slave servers 4122, as disclosed in fig. 4), 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).
12. As per claim 14, Huang discloses further comprising a processor including the hamming control logic circuitry (see fig. 8 and paragraph 0215).
13. As per claim 21, Huang discloses wherein the respective Hamming distance is calculated using the at least one memory controller (master server 4121; 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. Claim 22 is 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”,
16. As per claim 22, Huang discloses “The method of claim 1” [See rejection to claim 1 above], but 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.
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 and 5-22 have received a first action on the merits and are subject of a first action non-final.
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 PMR system, see her//pair-direct.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217- 91 97 (toll-free).
/Ernest Unelus/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2181