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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6, 13, and 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6: “comprising the radical inverse of the one global rank-1 lattice” should read “comprising a radical inverse of one global rank-1 lattice”.
Claim 13: “the image” should read “an image”.
Claim 20: “the sequence” should read “the rank-1 lattice sequence”.
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 1-2, 6-12, 16-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Ill provides a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for
product and processes. The claim analysis following the flowchart is as follows:
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. It recites a method, which is a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or
nature phenomenon?
Yes.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim recites “A computer-implemented method for synthesizing content, comprising: obtaining a rank-1 lattice sequence of points; assigning the points in the rank-1 lattice sequence to a sample of a plurality of samples according to an injective mapping to produce sample locations associated with the content; and synthesizing the content using the sample locations.”
The limitation “assigning the points…” as drafted, is a process that, under its
broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to a mental process that can be processed either by
a pen and paper or a person is capable of act on it in the mind. For example, the limitation in the
context of this claim encompasses a situation where a person can mentally assign points to samples of content and receive locations where those samples are.
Similarly, the limitation of “synthesizing the content using the sample locations”, as drafted, is a process that,
under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to a mental process that can be processed
either by a pen and paper or a person is capable of act on it in the mind. For example, the
limitation in the context of this claim encompasses a situation where a person can mentally take
the aforementioned sample locations that is resulted and can synthesize/create content/image/text from it.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the
limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic method, then it falls within the “Mental
Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase "integration into a practical application” to require an
additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use
the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements in the claim does not apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical
application because the claim only recites one additional element (i.e., “obtaining a rank-1 lattice sequence of points”) is data gathering as without significantly more. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to
integration of the abstract idea into practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the sample locations are used to evaluate an integral of a function.” Evaluate integral of a function involves mathematical
calculations. Therefore, claim 2 recites abstract idea without additional elements.
Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 1, no additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claim 6, the claim recites “wherein the points of the rank-1 lattice sequence are generated by one global rank-1 lattice sequence, comprising the radical inverse of the one global rank-1 lattice sequence shifted by a parameter.” Radical inverse involves mathematical calculations. Therefore, claim 6 recites abstract idea without additional elements. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 1, no additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claim 7, the claim recites “wherein the parameter is at least one of a random number and a pseudo-random number.” Limiting the parameter to be a random/pseudo-random number and together with claim 6 limitation involves mathematical calculations. Therefore, claim 7 recites abstract idea without additional elements. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 1, no additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claim 8, the claim recites “wherein an amount by which the one global rank-1 lattice sequence is shifted is determined by the injective mapping.” shift determined by injective mapping involves mathematical calculations. Therefore, claim 8 recites abstract idea without additional elements. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 1, no additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claim 9, the claim recites “wherein the injective mapping is at least one of a hash function, a permutation, and a radical inverse of an inverse of a space filling curve.” Hash function, a permutation, and a radical inverse involves mathematical relationship. Therefore, claim 9 recites abstract idea without additional elements. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 1, no additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claim 10, the claim recites “wherein the space filling curve is at least one of a Morton, Hilbert, Moore, and Peano curve.” Space filling curve involves mathematical relationships. Therefore, claim 10 recites abstract idea without additional elements. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 1, no additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claim 11, the claim recites “wherein the assigning further comprises: assigning each point in an additional rank-1 lattice sequence to an additional sample of the plurality of samples according to a space-filling curve; and modifying each additional sample using a respective sample assigned to one of the points in the rank-1 lattice sequence to produce additional sample locations associated with the content.” which further defines what can be done with a pen and paper to assign points to samples of content using space filling curve which involves mathematical calculations and modify samples to receive locations without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claim 12, the claim recites “wherein the points of the rank-1 lattice sequence are enumerated in reverse order.” Enumerated in reverse order involves mathematical relationships. Therefore, claim 12 recites abstract idea without additional elements. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 1, no additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claim 16, the claim recites “wherein at least one of the steps of obtaining, assigning, and synthesizing is performed for training, testing, or certifying a neural network employed in a machine, robot, or autonomous vehicle.” certifying a neural network employed order involves mental process of certifying. Therefore, claim 16 recites abstract idea without additional elements. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 1, no additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claim 17, the claim recites “wherein at least one of the steps of obtaining, assigning, and synthesizing is performed on a virtual machine comprising a portion of a graphics processing unit.” Graphic processor are generic computer component that do not integrate the abstract ideas recites in these claims into practical application or amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(a), (b), and (f)). Therefore, claim 17 recites abstract idea without additional elements. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 1, no additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 18 and 19 recite similar limitations discussed above with respect to
claims 1-2 respectively but with additional elements of system with memory that can cause the processor to perform operations. The system with memory and processor are generic computer component that do not integrate the abstract ideas recites in these claims into practical application or amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(a), (b), and (f)).
Claim 20 recite similar limitations discussed above with respect to
claim 1 respectively but with additional elements of non-transitory computer-readable
medium that can cause the processor to perform operations. The non-transitory
computer-readable media and processor are generic computer component that do not
integrate the abstract ideas recites in these claims into practical application or amount
to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(a), (b), and (f)).
Regarding dependent claim 21, the claim recites “wherein the points are multi- dimensional and one dimension of the points in the rank-1 lattice sequence is used to partition the rank-1 lattice sequence into multiple rank-1 lattice sequences.” Partitioning a sequence involves mathematical relationship. Therefore, claim 21 recites abstract idea without additional elements. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 1, no additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-2, 6-12, 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, recite that “synthesized content is an image”. This makes it to where the synthesizing is interpreted as rendering of an image. Therefore, these claims overcome the 101 rejections of their parent claims, due to additional elements that can integrate the abstract ideas into practical application (rendering).
Regarding claims 4-5, they depend on and incorporate matter from claim 3, this makes it to where the synthesizing is interpreted as rendering of an image. Therefore, these claims overcome the 101 rejections of their parent claims, due to additional elements that can integrate the abstract ideas into practical application (rendering).
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites that “wherein at least one of the steps of obtaining, assigning, and synthesizing is performed on a server or in a data center to generate the content and the content is streamed to a user device”. This makes it to where the steps are performed on a server or data center. Therefore, these claims overcome the 101 rejections of their parent claims, due to additional elements that can integrate the abstract ideas into practical application (using particular machine).
Regarding claim 15, “wherein at least one of the steps of obtaining, assigning, and synthesizing is performed within a cloud computing environment.” This makes it to where the steps are performed on a cloud computing environment. Therefore, these claims overcome the 101 rejections of their parent claims, due to additional elements that can integrate the abstract ideas into practical application (using particular machine).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dammertz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0244084), hereinafter referenced as Dammertz, in view of Keller (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0271322), hereinafter referenced as Keller.
Regarding claim 1, Dammertz a computer-implemented method for synthesizing content, comprising: (title teaches "COMPUTER IMAGE SYNTHESIS"); obtaining a rank-1 lattice sequence of points (abstract teaches "generating a data structure for efficient access of data stored in points of the rank-1 lattice"); data stored in points of rank-1 lattice being accessed shows obtaining/accessing rank-1 lattice sequence of points.
However, Dammertz fails to teach assigning the points in the rank-1 lattice sequence to a sample of a plurality of samples according to an injective mapping to produce sample locations associated with the content; and synthesizing the content using the sample locations.
However, Keller teaches assigning the points in the rank-1 lattice sequence to a sample of a plurality of samples according to an injective mapping to produce sample locations associated with the content (Keller, paragraph 14 teaches "using sample points determined by stratifying the integration domain using rank-1 lattices."); sample points that are determined by stratifying using rank-1 lattices shows points in the sequence of lattice are stratified/assigned to a sample of samples (plural because Keller, paragraph 47 mentions "In trajectory splitting, the samples"), this produces the sample location/coordinates associated with content (since Keller, paragraph 20 mentions "graphics system 10 uses the coordinates of the sample points"), and injective mapping here exists because Dammertz paragraph 63 mentions "rank-1 lattice can be generated...uniquely defined by i, this index can be used to address the corresponding r1-pixel in the image", which ensures a injective/one-to-one mapping; and synthesizing the content using the sample locations (Keller, paragraph 20 teaches "computer graphics system 10 uses the coordinates of the sample points that are obtained from the integration domain of the integral to control various aspects regarding the geometry while generating the image"); this shows the rendering/synthesizing of images/content uses coordinates of sample points (sample locations). Keller is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of rank-1 lattice usage and sample points alongside sample locations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dammertz's invention with the sample point and location techniques of Keller to improve efficiency (Keller, paragraph 44). This would be done by the specific computation techniques used.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Dammertz and Keller teaches wherein the sample locations are used to evaluate an integral of a function (Keller, Abstract teaches "generate a value for the function at the respective sample point; and instructions executable to enable the computer to use the generated function values in generating an estimate for the value of the integral in relation to at least one object", paragraph 2 teaches "computer being operable to generate the pixel value by evaluating an integral of a selected function" and paragraph 8 teaches "numerically evaluating an integral of a function over an s-dimensional integration domain, the system comprising a sample point generator, a function value generator and an integral value estimate generator"); this shows sample locations (value for function at respective sample point) are used to evaluate an integral of a function. The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Dammertz and Keller teaches wherein the synthesized content is an image and the function computes colors for the sample locations (Dammertz, title teaches "image synthesis", Keller, paragraph 3 teaches "contributions of the light reflected from the various points in the scene to the pixel value representing the color, and intensity of a particular pixel are expressed in the form of the one or more integrals of relatively complicated functions. Since the integrals used in computer graphics generally do not have a closed-form solution, numerical methods must be used to evaluate them to generate the pixel value" and Keller, paragraph 53 teaches "computer graphics system uses that information to determine the brightness and color of the scene at that point in the image"); this shows synthesized content is image and the function computes colors as well for the sample location. The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Dammertz and Keller teaches wherein at least one of the steps of obtaining, assigning, and synthesizing is performed on a server or in a data center to generate the content and the content is streamed to a user device (Dammertz, paragraph 161 teaches "enable the computer system to transmit information to, and receive information from, other computer systems and other devices in the network. In a typical network organized according to, for example, the client-server paradigm, certain computer systems in the network are designated as servers, which store data and programs (generally, "information") for processing by the other, client computer systems"); this shows server capable of generating the image synthesis and then other computers/client/user device being able to receive/stream the aforementioned content and when viewed in combination, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that server can perform the obtaining, assigning and synthesizing steps from above
Regarding claim 18, the system claim 18 recites similar limitations as method claim 1, and thus is rejected under similar rationale. In addition, Dammertz, fig. 25 shows system 1000 and memory/storage 1012 and abstract mentions processor.
Regarding claim 19, the system claim 19 recites similar limitations as method claim 2, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, the non-transitory computer-readable media claim 20 recites similar limitations as method claim 1, and thus is rejected under similar rationale. In addition, Dammertz, paragraph 163 teaches “which program instructions can be read from ROM “. and abstract teaches processor for executing such.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dammertz and Keller as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Elinas et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0104106), hereinafter referenced as Elinas.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Dammertz and Keller teaches determine a generator vector used to compute the rank-1 lattice sequence for each pixel location in the image (Dammertz, paragraph 177 teaches "efficiently search for generator vectors of rank-1 lattices and sequences with important applications in computer graphics"); this shows generator vector determined which is used to compute rank-1 lattice sequence for pixel locations.
However, the combination of Dammertz and Keller fails to teach wherein the injective mapping is a hash of a pixel location in the image that is used to determine a generator vector used to compute the rank-1 lattice sequence for each pixel location in the image.
However, Elinas teaches wherein the injective mapping is a hash of a pixel location in the image that is used to determine a generator vector used to compute the rank-1 lattice sequence for each pixel location in the image (Elinas, paragraph 123 teaches "constructed as a hash-table with keys 750 mapping one-to-one to pixel locations in the input image"); this shows each pixel location uniquely hashed to it's key for one-to-one/injective mapping (thus hashing is map of pixel location), and when viewed in combination, these are the same pixels (and hash thereof) for determining generator vector from Dammertz. Elinas is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of hash in relation to pixel locations and mapping. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dammertz's invention with the hash techniques of Elinas to ensure use of a hash table allows the time complexity of performing a pixel location based lookup to be O(1) (Elinas, paragraph 123) and ensure improving performance (Elinas, paragraph 10). This would mean constant improved performance even for larger datasets.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Dammertz, Keller and Elinas teaches wherein at least one of time and image frame number contributes to the hash (Elinas, paragraph 123 teaches "CGR table 715 is constructed as a hash-table... value fields of the CGR store the identity of contour segments", paragraph 137 teaches "time T+1, the same anchor pairs 1240b and 1260b are determined on the same tree 1290b in subsequent image 1270b. Since the anchor points 1240b and 1260b are determined/tracked successfully (as at step 215), contour 1250b is reused" and paragraph 82 teaches "check if the last image in an input frame sequence has been processed"); reusing information from different time if it’s the same shows time contributes to the hash since it wouldn’t need to be changed if time is updated but the pixel isnt and checking if last input frame shows image frame number contributes to the hash as well to see if it's the last. The same motivations used in claim 4 apply here in claim 5.
Claim(s) 6-8, 12 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dammertz and Keller as applied to claims 1 and 20 above, and further in view of Keller et al. (Construction of a rank-1 lattice sequence based on primitive polynomials), hereinafter referenced as Keller2.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Dammertz and Keller teaches wherein the points of the rank-1 lattice sequence are generated by one global rank-1 lattice sequence, (Dammertz, paragraph 63 teaches "Exploiting the property that every point x.sub.i in a rank-1 lattice can be generated by a single generator vector g allows for a very simple and efficient addressing scheme”); rank-1 generated by single generator vector g is a one global rank-1 lattice sequence meaning the aforementioned points are also generated by such.
However, the combination of Dammertz and Keller fails to explicitly teach comprising the radical inverse of the one global rank-1 lattice sequence shifted by a parameter (although, Dammertz, paragraph 110 teaches "Using a van der Corput sequence (radical inverse)...extends rank-1 lattices to rank-1 lattice sequences").
However, Keller2 teaches comprising the radical inverse of the one global rank-1 lattice sequence shifted by a parameter (Keller2, page 205, section 12.2 teaches "points of a rank-1 lattice sequence...points xi are the fractional parts (as denoted by the {·} operator) of a generator vector g multiplied by the radical inverse" and page 206, section 12.2.1 (4) teaches "partitioning a rank-1 lattice sequence into contiguous blocks of bm points, each block of points is a shifted copy of the first bm points and forms a (shifted) rank-1 lattice."); this shows radical inverse of rank-1 lattice sequence (one global rank-1 lattice from above) and parameter would be the offset to shift/move each block. Keller2 is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of parameters and radical inverse of rank-1 lattice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Dammertz and Keller with the parameter shifting techniques of Keller2 so sampling using the rank-1 lattice sequence algorithm is simpler and much more efficient (Keller2, page 212, fig. 12 description).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Dammertz, Keller and Keller2 teaches wherein the parameter is at least one of a random number and a pseudo-random number (Keller, paragraph 54 "using a random number set" and Keller2, page 211, section 12.4 teaches "While the whole rank-1 lattice may be of low discrepancy, the generator vector g is determined by a multiplicative congruential generator as used for computing a stream of pseudorandom numbers... linear feedback shift register generators have often been used for generating sequences of pseudorandom bits. It also resembles the construction of the highly efficient Mersenne twister pseudorandom number generator"); this shows the offset/parameter that shifts, would be from a pseudorandom and/or random number. The same motivations used in claim 6 apply here in claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Dammertz, Keller and Keller2 teaches wherein an amount by which the one global rank-1 lattice sequence is shifted is determined by the injective mapping (Keller, page 205, section 12.2.1 teaches "the radical inverse...enumerates all fractions in a permuted order... is an integer permutation and we have the following properties."); the following properties listed after (on page 206) include the shift, thus the injective mapping/permuted order [inverse function enumerating all fractions in permuted order and applying integer permutation is the injective mapping since paragraph 101 of applicant's disclosure mentions "injective mapping selection specifies at least one of a space-filling curve, permutation"] is what determines amount by which the one global rank-1 lattice sequence is shifted. The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Dammertz, Keller and Keller2 teaches wherein the points of the rank-1 lattice sequence are enumerated in reverse order (Keller, page 205, section 12.2.1 teaches "the radical inverse...enumerates all fractions in a permuted order" and page 208, first paragraph teaches "note that the radical inverse φ2 is computed using the bit reversal instruction"); bits here would be rearranged in reversed pattern, thus this binary reversal would lead to the enumeration being in reverse order due to reversed indexing pattern from applying the binary reversal. The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 12.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Dammertz, Keller and Keller2 teaches wherein the points are multi- dimensional and one dimension of the points in the rank-1 lattice sequence is used to partition the rank-1 lattice sequence into multiple rank-1 lattice sequences (Dammertz, paragraph 23 teaches "the rank-1 lattice is utilized to represent n-dimensional data" and Keller2, page 211, last paragraph teaches "that rank-1 lattice sequences can easily be partitioned into a multiple of sequences"); n-dimensional data shows multi-dimensional points, but these points are generated from one-dimensional sequence since "n" can also be one (prior the partition) , thus when viewed in combination one dimension of points in the sequence from n-dimensional data is partitioned into multiple sequences. The same motivations used in claim 6 apply here in claim 21.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dammertz and Keller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uralsky et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0071242), hereinafter referenced as Uralsky.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Dammertz and Keller teaches wherein the synthesized content is an image (Dammertz, title teaches "image synthesis").
However, the combination of Dammertz and Keller fails to teach and a number of the sample locations within each pixel of the image is adaptive.
However, Uralsky teaches and a number of the sample locations within each pixel of the image is adaptive (Uralsky, paragraph 98 teaches "since each of pixels 702, 704, 706, and 708 reside at different XY positions within a frame, the sample pattern used for each such pixel may vary compared to neighboring pixels.", paragraph 99 teaches "pixel group 710 includes pixels 712, 714, 716, and 718. For each frame, raster 385 generates two coverage samples per pixel, where the location of those samples varies" and paragraph 100 teaches "pixel group 720 includes pixels 722, 724, 726, and 728. For each frame, raster 385 generates four coverage samples per pixel, where the location of those samples varies"); this shows number of sample location within each pixel of image is adaptive because it varies and can change. Uralsky is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of samples per pixel being adaptive/varying. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Dammertz and Keller with the adaptive techniques of Uralsky to efficiently use the available bandwidth of PP memory (Uralsky, paragraph 42) and ensure the technique improves cache memory locality during processing (Uralsky, paragraph 69). This would be done using the adaptive configuration leading to the right amount of storage for the right amount of adaptive sample locations.
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable the combination of Dammertz and Keller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakadai (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0244794), hereinafter referenced as Nakadai.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Dammertz and Keller fails to teach wherein at least one of the steps of obtaining, assigning, and synthesizing is performed within a cloud computing environment.
However, Nakadai teaches wherein at least one of the steps of obtaining, assigning, and synthesizing is performed within a cloud computing environment (Nakadai, paragraph 62 teaches "each of the servers and clients forming the information system 1 according to the present exemplary embodiment may be a virtualized computer such as a virtual machine, or a server group such as cloud computing which provides a service to users over a network."); when viewed in combination, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that cloud computing implemented can still perform the obtaining, assigning and synthesizing steps from above. Nakadai is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of inverse function of space filling and hash function using cloud computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Dammertz and Keller with the space-filling, cloud and hash techniques of Nakadai to ensure efficiency of a sorting process in the distributed database system is improved by reducing a load on the central processor which accesses the first processor (Nakadai, paragraph 3). This would be due to the implementation of the various functions which also distribute load.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Dammertz, Keller, and Nakadai teaches wherein at least one of the steps of obtaining, assigning, and synthesizing is performed on a virtual machine comprising a portion of a graphics processing unit (Nakadai, paragraph 62 teaches "each of the servers and clients forming the information system 1 according to the present exemplary embodiment may be a virtualized computer such as a virtual machine, or a server group such as cloud computing which provides a service to users over a network."); GPU in real-time application (since Dammertz, paragraph 106 mentions "rank-1 lattice textures are simple to implement as a shader for GPU in real-time applications.") alongside virtual machine means the virtual machine would comprise GPU, and when viewed in combination, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the virtual machine can perform the obtaining, assigning and synthesizing steps from above. The same motivations used in claim 15 apply here in claim 17.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dammertz and Keller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Devitt et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0158081), hereinafter referenced as Devitt.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Dammertz and Keller fails to teach wherein at least one of the steps of obtaining, assigning, and synthesizing is performed for training, testing, or certifying a neural network employed in a machine, robot, or autonomous vehicle.
However, Devitt teaches wherein at least one of the steps of obtaining, assigning, and synthesizing is performed for training, testing, or certifying a neural network employed in a machine, robot, or autonomous vehicle (Devitt, paragraph 15 teaches "using a neural network", paragraph 33 teaches "external system can be: a vehicle, such as an automobile, nautical craft, aircraft, or other vehicle; a robot", and paragraph 155 teaches "preferred embodiment and variations thereof can be embodied and/or implemented at least in part as a machine configured"); this shows neural network being used which would need to be trained and is employed in robot/machine, when viewed in combination, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the neural network can perform the obtaining, assigning and synthesizing steps from above. Devitt is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of space filling using specific curves and using neural networks for specific technologies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Dammertz and Keller with the space-filling and neural network techniques of Devitt to improve a quality (e.g., completeness, accuracy, density, etc.) (Devitt, paragraph 63). This would be done by the specific filling curve used.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dammertz and Keller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Keller2 and as Nakadai.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Dammertz and Keller fails to teach wherein the injective mapping is at least one of a hash function, a permutation, and a radical inverse of an inverse of a space filling curve.
However, Keller2 teaches wherein the injective mapping is at least one of a hash function, a permutation, and a radical inverse of an inverse of a space filling curve (Keller2, page 205, section 12.2.1 teaches "the radical inverse...enumerates all fractions in a permuted order... is an integer permutation and we have the following properties."); the injective mapping/permuted order [inverse function enumerating all fractions in permuted order and applying integer permutation is the injective mapping since paragraph 101 of applicant's disclosure mentions "injective mapping selection specifies at least one of a space-filling curve, permutation"], and this also shows radical inverse of inverse of space-filling from Nakadai can be taken.
However, the combination of Dammertz, Keller, and Keller2 fails to teach wherein the injective mapping is at least one of a hash function, a permutation, and a radical inverse of an inverse of a space filling curve. The same motivations used in claim 6 apply here in claim 9.
However, Nakadai teaches wherein the injective mapping is at least one of a hash function, a permutation, and a radical inverse of an inverse of a space filling curve (Nakadai, paragraph 133 teaches "inverse function unit 324 which applies an inverse function of a distribution function using distribution information; and the space-filling curve multi-dimensionalization unit (space-filling curve server conversion unit 326) which converts a one-dimensional value to derive a multi-dimensional value through a space-filling curve conversion process. Accordingly, with reference to the destination server table, the inverse function unit 324 generates a set of one-dimensional values by applying an inverse function to a set of logical identifiers (hash values)"); this shows the injective mapping from above can use hash function (by inverse function using hash values) and also explicitly shows having inverse of space filling curve. The same motivations used in claim 15 apply here in claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Dammertz, Keller, Keller2 and Nakadai teaches wherein the assigning further comprises: assigning each point in an additional rank-1 lattice sequence to an additional sample of the plurality of samples according to a space-filling curve (Keller2, page 206, section 12.2.1 (4) teaches "partitioning a rank-1 lattice sequence into contiguous blocks of bm points, each block of points is a shifted copy of the first bm points and forms a (shifted) rank-1 lattice." and Nakadai, paragraph 133 teaches "the space-filling curve multi-dimensionalization unit (space-filling curve server conversion unit 326) which converts a one-dimensional value to derive a multi-dimensional value through a space-filling curve conversion process”); multiple sequences are created here thus it assigns each point in additional rank-1 lattice sequence to additional sample of plurality of samples from above and when viewed in combination, this accounts for (is according to) space-filling curve since space-filling here is for dimensionalization.
and modifying each additional sample using a respective sample assigned to one of the points in the rank-1 lattice sequence to produce additional sample locations associated with the content (Keller, paragraph 71 teaches "representation in lattice coordinates" and paragraph 72 teaches "first reconstruct a continuous image from the original samples by using an interpolation function. This reconstructed image is then resampled with the new lattice"); resampling means modifying the sample (inclusive of additional sample) and would be for current/respective sample of new lattice which would have additional sample locations associated with the content because the representation is in lattice coordinates. The same motivations used in claim 9 apply here in claim 11.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Dammertz, Keller, Keller2, and Nakadai as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Devitt.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Dammertz, Keller, Keller2 and Nakadai fails to teach wherein the space filling curve is at least one of a Morton, Hilbert, Moore, and Peano curve.
However, Devitt teaches wherein the space filling curve is at least one of a Morton, Hilbert, Moore, and Peano curve (Devitt, paragraph 112 teaches "vector assignment path can be a Hilbert curve (e.g., example shown in FIG. 7A), an onion curve, Morton curve, Moore curve, Peano curve, Gosper curve, and/or any other space filling curve."). Devitt is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of space filling using specific curves and using neural networks for specific technologies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Dammertz, Keller, Keller2 and Nakadai with the space-filling and neural network techniques of Devitt to improve a quality (e.g., completeness, accuracy, density, etc.) (Devitt, paragraph 63). This would be done by the specific filling curve used.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Skibak et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0109320) claim 46 teaches “generating a synthetic image by generating a respective pixel value for each of a plurality of respective pixels in an image…sampling point generator configured to generate a set of sampling points, the computer graphics system being configured to generate the pixel value…calculating pixel values in accordance with the selected rank-1 lattice”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAUMAN U AHMAD whose telephone number is (703)756-5306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571) 272-7794. 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.
/N.U.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611