Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 18, 2026
Application No. 18/236,864

Using Sub-Networks Created from Neural Networks for Processing Color Images

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 22, 2023
Priority
Aug 12, 2019 — continuation of 11/763,155
Examiner
VO, QUANG N
Art Unit
2683
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Advanced Micro Devices Inc.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
1m
Est. Remaining
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allowance Rate
452 granted / 627 resolved
+10.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
650
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.9%
-30.1% vs TC avg
§103
59.1%
+19.1% vs TC avg
§102
21.8%
-18.2% vs TC avg
§112
6.7%
-33.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 627 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (Liu) (US 11,908,102 B2) in view of Appalaraju et al. (Appalaraju) (US 10,467,526 B1). Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a system, comprising: a storage medium; and a processor (e.g., FIG. 15 is a schematic block diagram of an image processing device provided by at least one embodiment of the present disclosure, figure 15, paragraph 23) comprising circuitry configured to: generate, from a neural network for processing a plurality of inputs corresponding to a set of color channels in instances of input image data (e.g., FIG. 5 is an exemplary flowchart corresponding to step S200 shown in FIG. 4, FIG. 6A is a schematic block diagram of an architecture of a generative network corresponding to the image processing method shown in FIG. 4 provided by at least one embodiment of the present disclosure, paragraph 60), a sub-network for processing a reduced set of the plurality of inputs that includes fewer color channels than the set of color channels to be processed by the neural network (e.g., As shown in FIG. 1, the CNN includes an input layer 101, a hidden layer 102, and an output layer 103. The input layer 101 has 4 inputs; the hidden layer 102 has 3 outputs; the output layer 103 has 2 outputs; and the CNN finally outputs 2 images, paragraph 32). Liu does not specifically disclose store the sub-network in the storage medium. Appalaraju discloses store the sub-network in the storage medium (e.g., In one embodiment, a collection of images (or image pairs) as well as intermediate and/or final results of analysis of the images (such as the kinds of vectors produced using neural network models discussed above) may be stored at a storage service 823, paragraph 88). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Liu to include store the sub-network in the storage medium as taught by Appalaraju. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Liu by the teaching of Appalaraju to use for particular application. Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses wherein the processor is configured to generate, from the neural network, an additional sub-network for processing an additional set of color channels that includes: fewer color channels than the set of color channels; and different color channels than the reduced set of color channels (e.g., FIG. 1, the CNN includes an input layer 101, a hidden layer 102, and an output layer 103. The input layer 101 has 4 inputs; the hidden layer 102 has 3 outputs; the output layer 103 has 2 outputs; and the CNN finally outputs 2 images, paragraph 32). Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses wherein the processor is configured to combine the sub-network and the additional sub-network to create an ensemble network (e.g., FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a CNN. For instance, the CNN can be used for image processing, which uses images as input and output, and replaces scalar weights by convolution kernels. FIG. 1 only shows a CNN having a 3-layered structure, and the embodiments of the present disclosure are not limited to this case. As shown in FIG. 1, the CNN includes an input layer 101, a hidden layer 102, and an output layer 103. The input layer 101 has 4 inputs; the hidden layer 102 has 3 outputs; the output layer 103 has 2 outputs; and the CNN finally outputs 2 images, paragraph 32, figure 1). Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses wherein the processor is configured to select the sub-network and/or the additional sub-network for processing instances of input image data based at least in part on one or more color channels to be processed (e.g., FIG. 1, the CNN further includes a first activation layer 203 and a second activation layer 204. The first activation layer 203 is disposed after the first convolution layer 201, and the second activation layer 204 is disposed after the second convolution layer 202, paragraph 35). Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses wherein the processor is configured to provide representations of the sub-network and the additional sub-network to an additional processor, the representations of the sub-network and the additional sub-network configured to be combined by the additional processor into an ensemble network to be used for processing instances of input image data (e.g., the processor 520 can control other components in the image processing device to realize desired functions. The processor 520 can be an element having data processing capability and/or program execution capability, such as a central processing unit (CPU), a tensor processing unit (TPU), or a graphics processing unit (GPU). The CPU can have an X86 or ARM architecture, etc. The GPU can be integrated directly on the motherboard alone or built into the Northbridge chip of the motherboard. The GPU can also be built into the CPU, paragraph 219). Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses wherein the processor is configured to provide a representation of the sub-network to an additional processor, the representation of the sub-network configured to be used by the additional processor for processing instances of input image data(e.g., the processor 520 can control other components in the image processing device to realize desired functions. The processor 520 can be an element having data processing capability and/or program execution capability, such as a central processing unit (CPU), a tensor processing unit (TPU), or a graphics processing unit (GPU). The CPU can have an X86 or ARM architecture, etc. The GPU can be integrated directly on the motherboard alone or built into the Northbridge chip of the motherboard. The GPU can also be built into the CPU, paragraph 219) Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses wherein generating the sub-network includes creating a copy of the neural network from which internal elements for processing at least one color channel are removed (e.g., the input layer 101 with 4 inputs, sub-network 102 with 3 inputs, figure 1). Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is a method claim with limitations similar of limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected as set forth above as claim 1. Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is a method claim with limitations similar of limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected as set forth above as claim 2. Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is a method claim with limitations similar of limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected as set forth above as claim 3. Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is a method claim with limitations similar of limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected as set forth above as claim 4. Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is a method claim with limitations similar of limitations of claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected as set forth above as claim 5. Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is a method claim with limitations similar of limitations of claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected as set forth above as claim 6. Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is a method claim with limitations similar of limitations of claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected as set forth above as claim 7. Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is a processor claim with limitations similar of limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected as set forth above as claim 1. Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is a processor claim with limitations similar of limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected as set forth above as claim 2. Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is a processor claim with limitations similar of limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected as set forth above as claim 3. Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is a processor claim with limitations similar of limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected as set forth above as claim 4. Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is a processor claim with limitations similar of limitations of claim 5. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected as set forth above as claim 5. Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is a processor claim with limitations similar of limitations of claim 6. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected as set forth above as claim 6 .Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG N VO whose telephone number is (571)270-1121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, EST. 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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at 571-270-5254. 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. /QUANG N VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 3 earlier events
Mar 31, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Jul 24, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 25, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Dec 04, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Apr 22, 2026
Response Filed
May 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12705859
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR OBJECT-BASED DYNAMIC TONE ADJUSTMENT
2y 12m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12694558
System and Method for Identifying Feature in an Image of a Subject
3y 11m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12682490
INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, METHOD AND MEDIUM
2y 7m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12671782
Back-End Scaling Circuit With Local Tone Mapping After Image Warping
3y 4m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12671776
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM, AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION
3y 3m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+6.4%)
3y 0m (~1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 627 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month