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 .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220004798 A1 (hereinafter Zhu, also cited in ISR)
US 20220138992 A1 (WU92)
US 20110206254 A1 (Patwardhan54)
US 20180115774 A1 (hereinafter SU)
WO 2004017286 A2 (hereinafter Beuker, also cited in ISR and translation was already included)
US 20220239944 A1 (hereinafter Zhang)
US 20200098304 A1 (training of gamma correction model in para 77)
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Rejection made under 35 USC § 101 have been withdrawn in view of amendments to the claims and considering the arguments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim prior art rejection have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5, 7, 12, 18 & 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations failed to further limit the independent claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 12, 14, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of WU92.
Regarding claim 1. Zhu teaches a method for transforming data for artificial intelligence (AI) inference, comprising
obtaining an input image, wherein the input image comprises N pixels represented by a first bitwidth, N is a positive integer [ Para 60 input image ]
performing a nonlinear transformation on values of the N pixels to obtain N first pixel values [ Para 60 ; “(1) applying a nonlinear transform to pixel intensities of the input image”; also see para 47 ] wherein the nonlinear transformation is configured to make distribution of the N first pixel values closer to a uniform distribution than a distribution of the N pixels [(Fig.11 middle figure and para 34 )]
obtaining, according to a quantized model and the N first pixel values, M second pixel values, wherein M is a positive integer [ Para 60 “(2) mapping the transformed pixel intensities to 5-bit pixel values” ; mapping to 5-bit depth is quantization {para 61}; “.. mapping can be defined as a surjective function in mathematics” {para 47}; this teaches model] and a second bitwidth of the quantized model is less than the first bitwidth of the input image .[(Zhu 10bit to 5-bit, para 60)]
performing a reverse transformation corresponding to the nonlinear transformation on the M second pixel values to obtain M third pixel values [ Para 63 de-quantization includes “the system may be configured to map the pixel intensities of the second bit depth to pixel intensities of the first bit depth by applying a non-linear transform (e.g., an inverse of the transform used for quantizing the input image) to the pixel intensities of the second bit depth.” ]
determining, according to the M third pixels values, an output image.[(para 64)]
Zhu does not explicitly show parameters of the nonlinear transformation and parameters of quantized model are obtained by training together using common training data
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, WU92 teaches parameters of the nonlinear transformation and parameters of quantized model are obtained by training together using common training data [(Jointly trained {para 277} using transform-quantizing setting {Fig.10, 5} )]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities .
Regarding claim 8. See analysis of claim 1 and note Zhu further teaches an apparatus, wherein the apparatus comprises [ Para 44 ]
a processor, and a memory coupled to the processor and configured to store a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to [ [ Para 44 ]
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 18: see analysis of claim 1 and WU92 para 13
Zhu further teaches regarding claims 7 & 20 . The method according to claim 1, wherein bitwidth of the quantized model is less than bitwidth of the input image.[[(Zhu 10bit to 5-bit, para 60)]
Regarding claim 14. See analysis of claim 1 and note Zhu Para 44
Claims 2-3, 6, 9-10, 13, 15-16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of WU92 in view of SU.
Regarding Claim 2, 9, 15 . Zhu in view of WU92 does not explicitly show performing a nonlinear transformation on values of the N pixels to obtain N first pixel values, comprises performing a polynomial transformation on the values of the N pixels to obtain the N first pixel values
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, SU teaches performing a nonlinear transformation on values of the N pixels to obtain N first pixel values, comprises performing a polynomial transformation on the values of the N pixels to obtain the N first pixel values [(SU para 68)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Regarding Claim 3, 10, 16. SU additionally teaches a bounded degree of the polynomial transformation is less than 5. [(SU para 68, teaches 2nd order)]
Regarding Claim 6, 13, 19. SU additionally teaches wherein the performing a nonlinear transformation on values of the N pixels to obtain N first pixel values, comprises
performing the nonlinear transformation, by looking up a first transformation table, on the values of the N pixels to obtain the N first pixel values. [ SU see para 68 ]
Claims 4, 11, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of WU92 in view of Beuker.
Regarding Claim 4, 11, 17 . Zhu in view WU92 does not explicitly show performing a nonlinear transformation on values of the N pixels to obtain N first pixel values, comprises
performing a gamma correction on the values of the N pixels to obtain the N first pixel values.
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Beuker teaches performing a nonlinear transformation on values of the N pixels to obtain N first pixel values, comprises
performing a gamma correction on the values of the N pixels to obtain the N first pixel values. [(Beuker page 11 lines 17-25 and Fig.8)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 12, 14, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of PATWARDHAN54.
Regarding claim 1. Zhu teaches a method for transforming data for artificial intelligence (AI) inference, comprising
obtaining an input image, wherein the input image comprises N pixels represented by a first bitwidth, N is a positive integer [ Para 60 input image ]
performing a nonlinear transformation on values of the N pixels to obtain N first pixel values [ Para 60 ; “(1) applying a nonlinear transform to pixel intensities of the input image”; also see para 47 ] wherein the nonlinear transformation is configured to make distribution of the N first pixel values closer to a uniform distribution than a distribution of the N pixels [(Fig.11 middle figure and para 34 )]
obtaining, according to a quantized model and the N first pixel values, M second pixel values, wherein M is a positive integer [ Para 60 “(2) mapping the transformed pixel intensities to 5-bit pixel values” ; mapping to 5-bit depth is quantization {para 61}; “.. mapping can be defined as a surjective function in mathematics” {para 47}; this teaches model] and a second bitwidth of the quantized model is less than the first bitwidth of the input image .[(Zhu 10bit to 5-bit, para 60)]
performing a reverse transformation corresponding to the nonlinear transformation on the M second pixel values to obtain M third pixel values [ Para 63 de-quantization includes “the system may be configured to map the pixel intensities of the second bit depth to pixel intensities of the first bit depth by applying a non-linear transform (e.g., an inverse of the transform used for quantizing the input image) to the pixel intensities of the second bit depth.” ]
determining, according to the M third pixels values, an output image.[(para 64)]
Zhu does not explicitly show parameters of the nonlinear transformation and parameters of quantized model are obtained by training together using common training data
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, PATWARDHAN54 teaches parameters of the nonlinear transformation and parameters of quantized model are obtained by training together using common training data [(para 62, Fig.4 )]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities .
Regarding claim 8. See analysis of claim 1 and note Zhu further teaches an apparatus, wherein the apparatus comprises [ Para 44 ]
a processor, and a memory coupled to the processor and configured to store a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to [ [ Para 44 ]
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 18: see analysis of claim 1 and PATWARDHAN54 para 64, Fig.4
Zhu further teaches regarding claims 7 & 20 . The method according to claim 1, wherein bitwidth of the quantized model is less than bitwidth of the input image.[[(Zhu 10bit to 5-bit, para 60)]
Regarding claim 14. See analysis of claim 1 and note Zhu Para 44
Claims 2-3, 6, 9-10, 13, 15-16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of PATWARDHAN54 in view of SU.
Regarding Claim 2, 9, 15 . Zhu in view of PATWARDHAN54 does not explicitly show performing a nonlinear transformation on values of the N pixels to obtain N first pixel values, comprises performing a polynomial transformation on the values of the N pixels to obtain the N first pixel values
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, SU teaches performing a nonlinear transformation on values of the N pixels to obtain N first pixel values, comprises performing a polynomial transformation on the values of the N pixels to obtain the N first pixel values [(SU para 68)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Regarding Claim 3, 10, 16. SU additionally teaches a bounded degree of the polynomial transformation is less than 5. [(SU para 68, teaches 2nd order)]
Regarding Claim 6, 13, 19. SU additionally teaches wherein the performing a nonlinear transformation on values of the N pixels to obtain N first pixel values, comprises
performing the nonlinear transformation, by looking up a first transformation table, on the values of the N pixels to obtain the N first pixel values. [ SU see para 68 ]
Claims 4, 11, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of PATWARDHAN54 in view of Beuker.
Regarding Claim 4, 11, 17 . Zhu in view PATWARDHAN54 does not explicitly show performing a nonlinear transformation on values of the N pixels to obtain N first pixel values, comprises
performing a gamma correction on the values of the N pixels to obtain the N first pixel values.
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Beuker teaches performing a nonlinear transformation on values of the N pixels to obtain N first pixel values, comprises
performing a gamma correction on the values of the N pixels to obtain the N first pixel values. [(Beuker page 11 lines 17-25 and Fig.8)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426