CTNF 18/726,380 CTNF 87350 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections 07-29-02 AIA Claims 2, 9, 15 are objected to because they include reference characters “DC” which are not enclosed within parentheses, nor defined or interpreted. Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1,7,8,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230259743 A1 Sanchez; Javier et al. (hereafter Sanchez), and further in view of US 20230098994 A1 Labatie; Antoine et al. (hereafter Labatie) . Regarding claim 1, Sanchez discloses An apparatus configured to perform a method of converting a sample value of feature map frame data to a tensor value (Fig.1), the method comprising steps of: determining a sample sign and a sample magnitude of the sample value ([03], [117], input tensel is the sample with MSB as sign, LSB of the tensel is the sample magnitude); determining an adjusted sample magnitude based on the determined sample magnitude (Fig.5, [117], reduction engine outputs a size-reduced or weighted sum, 9 bit tensel as the adjusted sample); determining a tensor magnitude based on the adjusted sample magnitude (Fig.5, [03], [85], based on size-reduced or weighted sum tensel, pool engine outputs tensor and its magnitude thereof is part of the tensor, since a tensor has one of more dimensions ). Sanchez fails to disclose determining a normalised tensor magnitude based on the determined tensor magnitude; and determining the tensor value based on the normalised tensor magnitude. However, Labatie teaches determining a normalised tensor magnitude based on the determined tensor magnitude (Fig.3A, [51], [53], normalization preforms on spatial dimensions of a input tensor and produces a four dimensions, pre-activation tensor Y); and determining the tensor value based on the normalised tensor magnitude (Fig.4, [49], tensor input Y to activation function would produce a tensor value). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus configured to perform a method of converting a sample value of feature map frame data to a tensor value disclosed by Sanchez to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Labatie, in order to solve the issue of the distribution of intermediate tensors may become ill-behaved due to the accumulated effect of a succession of layers, as identified by Labatie. Regarding claim 7, Sanchez discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is any one of a smartphone and a camera (Fig.25). Regarding claims 8, 14, see the rejection for claim 1 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2,9,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez, in view of Labatie, and further in view of US 20150043655 A1 Nilsson . Regarding claims 2, 9, 15, Nilsson teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the step of determining the sample sign and the sample magnitude comprises subtracting a DC offset from the sample value ([67]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Sanchez, Labatie and Nilsson before him/her, to modify the apparatus configured to perform a method of converting a sample value of feature map frame data to a tensor value disclosed by Sanchez to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Labatie and Nilsson, in order to solve the issue of the distribution of intermediate tensors may become ill-behaved due to the accumulated effect of a succession of layers, as identified by Labatie, and reach a good trade-off in terms of effectiveness versus computational complexity, as identified by Nilsson . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3,10,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez, in view of Labatie, and further in view of US 20190191161 A1 Gisquet; Christophe et al. (hereafter Gisquet) . Regarding claims 3, 10, 16, Gisquet teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the step of determining the adjusted sample magnitude comprises: determining whether the sample magnitude is equal to zero or greater than zero; setting the adjusted sample magnitude to zero, if the sample magnitude is equal to zero; and setting the adjusted sample magnitude to the sum of the sample magnitude and a predetermined threshold, if the sample magnitude is greater than zero ([42]-[43]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Sanchez, Labatie and Gisquet before him/her, to modify the apparatus configured to perform a method of converting a sample value of feature map frame data to a tensor value disclosed by Sanchez to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Labatie and Gisquet, in order to solve the issue of the distribution of intermediate tensors may become ill-behaved due to the accumulated effect of a succession of layers, as identified by Labatie, and optimize quantization parameters and processes, as identified by Gisquet . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5,12,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez, in view of Labatie, and further in view of US 20220391172 A1 Imber; James et al. (hereafter Imber) . Regarding claims 5, 12, 18, Imber teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the step of determining the normalised tensor magnitude comprises: dividing the tensor magnitude by a power-of-two factor; and applying the sample sign to the divided tensor magnitude to obtain the normalised tensor magnitude ([126], [15]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Sanchez, Labatie and Imber before him/her, to modify the apparatus configured to perform a method of converting a sample value of feature map frame data to a tensor value disclosed by Sanchez to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Labatie and Imber, in order to solve the issue of the distribution of intermediate tensors may become ill-behaved due to the accumulated effect of a succession of layers, as identified by Labatie, and provide methods for implementing an exponential operation, and a softmax neural network layer in neural network accelerator hardware, as identified by Imber . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6,13,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez, in view of Labatie, and further in view of US 20210390386 A1 LI; Xinlin et al. (hereafter Li) . Regarding claims 6, 13, 19, Li teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the step of determining the tensor value comprises: multiplying the tensor magnitude by a quantisation range of the feature map frame data ([62]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Sanchez, Labatie and Li before him/her, to modify the apparatus configured to perform a method of converting a sample value of feature map frame data to a tensor value disclosed by Sanchez to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Labatie and Li in order to solve the issue of the distribution of intermediate tensors may become ill-behaved due to the accumulated effect of a succession of layers, as identified by Labatie, and provide methods and systems for performing an inference task efficiently on a resource constrained hardware device, as identified by Li . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 4, 11, 17 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. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : US 20250133241 A1, US 20190130268 A1, US 20210263738 A1 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY Y. LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday (8:30 AM- 4:30 PM) 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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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. /TRACY Y. LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/726,380 Page 2 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/726,380 Page 3 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/726,380 Page 4 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/726,380 Page 5 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/726,380 Page 6 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/726,380 Page 7 Art Unit: 2487
Prosecution Insights