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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 9, and 18 have been amended. Claims 1-25 are pending and rejected are rejected in the application. This office action is Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Argues
Applicant finds no evidence in the Office Action that the Office "consult[ed] the
specification to determine whether the disclosed invention improves technology or a technical field, and evaluate the claim to ensure it reflects the disclosed improvement." For example, examples the specification describe a "similarity search architecture 100 (e.g., a system-on-chip) implements an enhanced similarity and early pruning search process that executes with reduced latency, less bandwidth and reduced computational resources." The specification further notes "the similarity PEs 110 execute early pruning (e.g., bypassing) to discard similarity processing at early stages to reduce computing resources and processing power" and "such pruning occurs at an early stage prior to determining all similarity measurements between vector features of the
respective candidate vector and the respective query vector to determine whether to ignore the respective candidate vector. Doing so may reduce computational resources and latency without reducing accuracy." Applicant believes that it has shown in the specification that this "improves technology or a technical field" and the Office has not shown otherwise. However, the Office has not "evaluate the claim to ensure it reflects the disclosed improvement" in which the language of "bypass" clearly reflects a disclosed improvement. Rather, the Office improperly asserts "generic computer" arguments that are not reflective of the law, the MPEP, nor guidance from multiple superiors at the Office.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant's 35 USC § 101 arguments with respect to claims 1-25 have been considered but are not persuasive.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) provides:
“The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").”
While the specification describes an “enhanced similarity and early pruning search process” that allegedly reduces latency, bandwidth, and computational resources, the claims do not recite the technological details necessary to reflect a specific improvement to computer technology. Instead, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of comparing data (i.e., similarity measurements between vectors) and making a decision to perform or bypass additional calculations based on the comparison. Such operations—evaluating partial results, comparing values, and conditionally skipping further processing—constitute mental processes and mathematical concepts, which fall within recognized abstract idea groupings under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The recitation of a “system-on-chip” and “processing engines” does not meaningfully limit the claims, as these components are described at a high level of generality and perform their conventional functions of executing instructions and processing data. The claim language (e.g., “determine,” “generate,” “prune,” and “bypass”) merely reflects the application of the abstract idea using generic computing elements, rather than a specific improvement in how those computing elements operate. Notably, the claims do not recite a particular hardware configuration, specialized circuitry, or a defined algorithm that improves the functioning of the system-on-chip itself.
Although Applicant points to the term “bypass” as reflecting an improvement, this limitation is expressed functionally and results-oriented, without reciting how the bypass is technologically implemented in a manner that improves computer performance. As such, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Applicant Argues
For example, the combination, as cited, does not appear to at least describe "determine, with a second processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, a second total similarity measurement based on the query vector and a second candidate vector." The Office Action asserts that Kaul does not describe this clause. The Office Action turns to Xu and, in particular, paragraph [0024] which appears to describe a prior art Inverted File System-Product Quantizer (INV-PQ) approach to similarity retrieval. In this paragraph, Xu appears to describe clustering into N vector subsets and that the similarity calculations are only performed between object vectors and candidate vectors in the vector subsets. There is no indication that this would be a second processing engine. Nor is there an indication of second and first candidate vectors in Xu. All the Office Action is doing is somehow combining two different approaches to similarity calculation because that would "result in the claim invention." There is no indication one would combine Kaul with Xu to add a second similarity measurement. Further, the rationale that the combination would allow for "efficiently perform[ing] vector similarity querying without additional hardware optimization" is simply not true. The Office is ADDING a second similarity measurement that Kaul does not need to perform. That adds complexity, not simplifying it.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant's 35 USC § 103 arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Here, Xu discloses determine, with a second processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, a total similarity measurement based on the query vector and a second candidate vector (paragraph[0024], the reference describes calculating a similarity distance between a vector (i.e., query vector, as claimed) and a candidate vector (i.e., a second candidate vector, as claimed). The Examiner interprets the vector as being the same vector in Kaul.). With respect to the limitation “determine, with a second processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, a second total similarity measurement based on the query vector and a second candidate vector,” Applicant contends that neither US20220327128A1 (Kaul) nor Xu discloses a “second processing engine,” nor first and second candidate vectors, and that the Office is improperly combining disparate approaches. This argument is not persuasive because it is based on an unduly narrow interpretation of the claim language. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “second processing engine of the plurality of processing engines” does not require a separately disclosed or specially designated unit in Xu. Kaul teaches a system including a plurality of processing engines that perform similarity computations. In such a system, assigning a similarity computation to another processing engine inherently corresponds to a “second processing engine.” Xu (para. [0024]) teaches determining a similarity (distance) between a query vector and candidate vectors. When Xu’s similarity computation is applied within Kaul’s multi-engine architecture, the computation would reasonably be performed by one of the available processing engines, including a different (i.e., second) processing engine. Thus, the combination teaches or at least suggests the claimed limitation.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Xu does not disclose “first” and “second” candidate vectors, Xu’s disclosure of computing similarity between a query vector and multiple candidate vectors (e.g., vectors within clustered subsets) inherently involves more than one candidate vector. Distinguishing between a first and second candidate vector is merely a labeling of multiple instances of the same type of data and does not require explicit identification in the prior art.
Applicant further argues that Xu describes a prior art INV-PQ approach and therefore should not be relied upon. However, it is well established that a reference is prior art for all that it teaches, including descriptions of known techniques, so long as the disclosure is enabling. Xu’s description of similarity computations between query and candidate vectors constitutes a teaching of such operations regardless of whether it is characterized as prior art within the reference.
With respect to the rationale for combining Kaul and Xu, Applicant asserts that adding a second similarity measurement increases complexity and does not improve efficiency. This argument is also not persuasive. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating additional or staged similarity computations (as taught by Xu) into Kaul’s multi-engine similarity search framework would have yielded predictable benefits, such as improved accuracy, better ranking of candidate vectors, and/or scalable parallel processing of similarity evaluations. The use of multiple similarity evaluations across different processing engines represents a known technique in the art for balancing performance and accuracy in vector search systems. Applying Xu’s similarity computation within Kaul’s parallel architecture would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Accordingly, the combination of Kaul and Xu teaches or suggests the disputed limitations, and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant Argues
For example, the combination, as cited, does not appear to at least describe "determine that the first partial similarity measurement is greater than the second total similarity measurement and prune calculation of the second partial similarity measurement to bypass calculation of the first total similarity measurement." The Office Action asserts that Kaul does not describe this clause and cites Jain's col. 24, lines 38-64 which does not take into account partial vs. total similarity measurements. Jain describes determining if a primitive exists in two feature vectors (box 488). If yes, then a comparison function is called and a primitive score calculated per primitive and all of the primitive scores added to form a "partial final score." If this score is above a threshold, the comparisons stop. However, there is no determination of if any similarity measurement is greater than a different similarity measurement. All Jain does is
calculate a primitive score until it reaches a threshold.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant's 35 USC § 103 arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Jain further discloses determine that the first partial similarity measurement is greater than the second total similarity measurement and prune calculation of the second partial similarity measurement to bypass calculation of the first total similarity measurement (Column 24, lines 38-64, the reference describes to determining if the similarity partial final score of a vector (i.e., similarity measurement, as claimed) and score of a vector are great than a threshold. If true, then the process is aborted (i.e., bypassed, as claimed). In addition, the Examiner interprets this limitation as being optional because of the terms when the first partial similarity measurement is greater than. The limitation would not occur if the first partial similarity measurement is equal to the second total similarity measurement.).
Jain clearly teaches incrementally computing a similarity score (i.e., a “partial final score”) and terminating further computation once that score exceeds a threshold (col. 24, lines 38–64). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this partial final score corresponds to a “partial similarity measurement,” and the act of stopping further calculations once a condition is met corresponds to the claimed “prune calculation” or “bypass” step. Although Jain expresses the comparison in terms of a threshold rather than explicitly labeling a “second total similarity measurement,” the threshold serves as a comparison benchmark for determining whether further computation toward a full similarity evaluation is necessary. Thus, Jain teaches the functional behavior of comparing an intermediate similarity value and conditionally terminating further similarity computations.
Applicant’s contention that Jain does not compare two similarity measurements is not dispositive, as the claim does not require explicit labeling of the compared values but rather recites their functional relationship. A threshold-based early termination is a well-known pruning technique that inherently bypasses additional calculations, including those that would otherwise contribute to a total similarity measurement. When combined with US20220327128A1 (Kaul), which provides a multi-engine similarity search framework, it would have been obvious to incorporate Jain’s pruning technique to improve computational efficiency by avoiding unnecessary similarity calculations. Accordingly, the combination teaches or at least suggests the disputed limitation, and the rejection is maintained.
Objected Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 13-16, and 22-25 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. The objected dependent claims will not overcome the Alice 35 USC § 101 rejection.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-8 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 1 recites a system and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 1 recites a computing system comprising:
determine, with a first processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, a first partial similarity measurement based on a first portion of a query vector and a first portion of a first candidate vector;
determine, with a second processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, a second total similarity measurement based on the query vector and a second candidate vector;
and determine that the first partial similarity measurement is greater than the second total similarity measurement and prune calculation of the second partial similarity measurement to bypass calculation of the first total similarity measurement. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a computing system”, “a system-on-chip”, “processing engines”, “a memory”, and “processing engine” nothing in the claim’s elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for a first processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, “determine, with a first processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, a first partial similarity measurement based on a first portion of a query vector and a first portion of a first candidate vector” encompasses mentally a person determine a first partial similarity measurement based on a first portion of a query vector and a first portion of a first candidate vector.
Next, but for a second processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, “determine, with a second processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, a second total similarity measurement based on the query vector and a second candidate vector” encompasses mentally a person determine a total similarity measurement based on the query vector and a second candidate vector.
Next, but for a second processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, “determine, with a second processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, a second total similarity measurement based on the query vector and a second candidate vector” encompasses mentally a person determine a total similarity measurement based on the query vector and a second candidate vector.
In addition, but for the first processing engine, “determine that the first partial similarity measurement is greater than the second total similarity measurement and prune calculation of the second partial similarity measurement to bypass calculation of the first total similarity measurement” encompasses mentally a person determine when the first partial similarity measurement is greater than the second total similarity measurement and prune calculation of the second partial similarity measurement to bypass calculation of the first total similarity measurement.
The mere nominal recitation of “a computing system”, “a system-on-chip”, “processing engines”, “a memory”, and “processing engine” do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the following additional limitations:
a system-on-chip that is to include a plurality of processing engines; and
a memory including a set of executable program instructions, which when executed by the system-on-chip, cause the computing system to:
The claim as a whole merely describes determining similarity between candidate vectors. The claimed elements of “a computing system”, “a system-on-chip”, “processing engines”, “a memory”, and “processing engine” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 1 recites generic computer components (i.e., “a computing system”, “a system-on-chip”, “processing engines”, “a memory”, and “processing engine”). Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere use of generic computer components to determine similarity between candidate vectors cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the computing system to: compare, with the first processing engine, the second portion of the query vector to the second portion of the first candidate vector in response to the first partial similarity measurement being less than the total similarity measurement, wherein the first partial similarity measurement is to be a partial distance and the total similarity measurement is to be a total distance.” of dependent claim 2 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person comparing, with the first processing engine, the second portion of the query vector to the second portion of the first candidate vector in response to the first partial similarity measurement being less than the total similarity measurement, wherein the first partial similarity measurement is to be a partial distance and the total similarity measurement is to be a total distance. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 2 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “retrieve, with the plurality of processing engines, different candidate vectors” of dependent claim 3 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Next, the limitation is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs. indicates mere data gathering is extra solution activity.
In addition, the limitation “determine, with the plurality of processing engines, a plurality of partial similarity measurements between first parts of the query vector and first parts of the different candidate vectors” of dependent claim 3 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with the plurality of processing engines, a plurality of partial similarity measurements between first portions of the query vector and first portions of the different candidate vectors. Next, the limitation “determine, with the plurality of processing engines, whether to bypass partial similarity computations between second parts of the query vector and second parts of the different candidate vectors based on the plurality of partial similarity measurements and the second total similarity measurement” of dependent claim 3 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with the plurality of processing engines, whether to bypass partial similarity computations between second portions of the query vector and second parts of the different candidate vectors based on the plurality of partial similarity measurements and the total similarity measurement. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 3 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the system-on-chip is to include a plurality of memory storage areas that are each dedicated to one of the plurality of processing engines, wherein the plurality of memory storage areas is to store the different candidate vectors, wherein the different candidate vectors are to represent a vector candidate database.” of dependent claim 4 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Next, the claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs. indicates mere data gathering is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 4 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the computing system to: determine, with the first processing engine, to bypass calculation of the second partial similarity measurement wherein an index to the query vector is at a value when the first partial similarity measurement is determined” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with the first processing engine, to bypass a partial similarity computation of the first candidate vector based on the first partial similarity measurement and the total similarity measurement, wherein an index to the query vector is at a value when the first partial similarity measurement is determined. Next, the limitation “in response to the second partial similarity measurement being bypassed, increment, with the first processing engine, the value of the index” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person in response to the partial similarity computation being bypassed, increment, with the first processing engine, the value of the index. Further, the limitation “determine, with the first processing engine, whether to bypass a similarity computation of a third candidate vector based on a partial similarity measurement that is to be determined based on a feature value of the third candidate vector and a feature value of the query vector, wherein the feature value of the third candidate vector and the feature value of the query vector are both associated with the incremented value of the index” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with the first processing engine, whether to bypass a similarity computation of a third candidate vector based on a partial similarity measurement that is to be determined based on a feature value of the third candidate vector and a feature value of the query vector, wherein the feature value of the third candidate vector and the feature value of the query vector are both associated with the incremented value of the index. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 5 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the computing system to: store the second total similarity measurement and a plurality of similarity measurements in a max-heap binary tree or a min-heap binary tree, wherein the plurality of similarity measurements is to be determined based on different candidate vectors and the query vector, wherein the total similarity measurement is to be larger than each of the plurality of similarity measurements, identify a final vector from the candidate vectors that corresponds to a shortest distance of the plurality of similarity measurements; and output the final vector as a closest match to the query vector” of dependent claim 6 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Next, the claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs. indicates mere data outputting is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 6 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the computing system to: store a plurality of candidate vectors in a plurality of ping-pong buffers” of dependent claim 7 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Next, the limitation is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs. indicates mere data gathering is extra solution activity.
In addition, the limitation “determine, with the plurality of processing engines, a plurality of partial similarity measurements based on first parts of a plurality of query vectors and first parts of the plurality of candidate vectors” of dependent claim 7 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with the plurality of processing engines, a plurality of partial similarity measurements based on first portions of a plurality of query vectors and first portions of the plurality of candidate vectors. Next, the limitation “determine, with the plurality of processing engines, that similarity computations associated with a first subset of the plurality of candidate vectors are to be bypassed based on a first subset of the plurality of partial similarity measurements and a first plurality of total similarity measurements” of dependent claim 7 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with the plurality of processing engines, that similarity computations associated with a first subset of the plurality of candidate vectors are to be bypassed based on a first subset of the plurality of partial similarity measurements and first total similarity measurements. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 7 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the computing system to: determine, with a group of the plurality of processing engines, that a second subset of the plurality of candidate vectors are to be processed based on a second subset of the plurality of partial similarity measurements and the first plurality of total similarity measurements” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with a group of the plurality of processing engines, that a second subset of the plurality of candidate vectors are to be processed based on a second subset of the plurality of partial similarity measurements and the first total similarity measurements. Next, the limitation “determining, with the group of the plurality of processing engines, a second plurality of total similarity measurements based on the second subset of the plurality of candidate vectors and the plurality of query vectors” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with the plurality of processing engines, that similarity computations associated with a first subset of the plurality of candidate vectors are to be bypassed based on a first subset of the plurality of partial similarity measurements and first total similarity measurements. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 8 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Further, the limitation “store each respective total similarity measurement of the second plurality of total similarity measurements into different heap memories based on an identification of a query vector of the plurality of query vectors associated with the respective total similarity measurement, wherein each of the different heap memories is dedicated to one of the plurality of query vectors” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Next, the limitation is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs. indicates mere data gathering is extra solution activity.
Claims 9-17 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 9 recites a semiconductor apparatus performing steps and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 9 recites a semiconductor apparatus comprising:
determine, with a first processing engine of a plurality of processing engines, a first partial similarity measurement based on a first portion of a query vector and a first portion of a first candidate vector;
determine, with a second processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, a second total similarity measurement based on the query vector and a second candidate vector;
determine the first partial similarity measurement is greater than a threshold and prune calculation of the second partial similarity measurement to bypass calculation of the first total similarity measurement, wherein the threshold is a longest distance as determined from a top k distances.
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a semiconductor apparatus”, “one or more substrates”, “a fixed-functionality logic hardware”, and “processing engine” nothing in the claim’s elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 9 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for a first processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, “determine, with a first processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, a first partial similarity measurement based on a first portion of a query vector and a first portion of a first candidate vector” encompasses mentally a person determine a first partial similarity measurement based on a first portion of a query vector and a first portion of a first candidate vector.
Next, but for a second processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, “determine, with a second processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, a total similarity measurement based on the query vector and a second candidate vector” encompasses mentally a person determine a total similarity measurement based on the query vector and a second candidate vector.
In addition, but for the first processing engine, “determine the first partial similarity measurement is greater than a threshold and prune calculation of the second partial similarity measurement to bypass calculation of the first total similarity measurement, wherein the threshold is a longest distance as determined from a top k distances.” encompasses mentally a person determine when the first partial similarity measurement is greater than the second total similarity measurement and prune calculation of the second partial similarity measurement to bypass calculation of the first total similarity measurement.
The mere nominal recitation of “a semiconductor apparatus”, “one or more substrates”, “a fixed-functionality logic hardware”, and “processing engine” do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 9 recites the following additional limitations:
one or more substrates; and
logic coupled to the one or more substrates, wherein the logic is implemented in one or more of configurable logic or fixed-functionality logic hardware, the logic coupled to the one or more substrates to:
The claim as a whole merely describes determining similarity between candidate vectors. The claimed elements of “a semiconductor apparatus”, “one or more substrates”, “a fixed-functionality logic hardware”, and “processing engine” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 9 recites generic computer components (i.e., “a semiconductor apparatus”, “one or more substrates”, “a fixed-functionality logic hardware”, and “processing engine”). Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere use of generic computer components to determine similarity between candidate vectors cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 9 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the first partial similarity measurement is to be a partial distance and the first total similarity measurement is a total distance.” of dependent claim 10 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person comparing, with the first processing engine, the second portion of the query vector to the second portion of the first candidate vector in response to the first partial similarity measurement being less than the total similarity measurement, wherein the first partial similarity measurement is to be a partial distance and the total similarity measurement is to be a total distance. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 10 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “retrieve, with the plurality of processing engines, different candidate vectors” of dependent claim 11 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Next, the limitation is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs. indicates mere data gathering is extra solution activity.
In addition, the limitation “determine, with the plurality of processing engines, a plurality of partial similarity measurements between first parts of the query vector and first parts of the different candidate vectors” of dependent claim 11 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with the plurality of processing engines, a plurality of partial similarity measurements between first portions of the query vector and first portions of the different candidate vectors. Next, the limitation “determine, with the plurality of processing engines, whether to bypass partial similarity computations between second parts of the query vector and second parts of the different candidate vectors based on the plurality of partial similarity measurements and the second total similarity measurement” of dependent claim 11 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with the plurality of processing engines, whether to bypass partial similarity computations between second portions of the query vector and second portions of the different candidate vectors based on the plurality of partial similarity measurements and the total similarity measurement. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 11 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the logic coupled to the one or more substrates is to: access a plurality of memory storage areas that are each dedicated to one of the plurality of processing engines, wherein the plurality of memory storage areas is to store the different candidate vectors, wherein the different candidate vectors are to represent a vector candidate database” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Next, the claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs. indicates mere data gathering is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 12 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “determine, with the first processing engine, to bypass calculation of the second partial similarity, wherein an index to the query vector is at a value when the first partial similarity measurement is determined” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with the first processing engine, to bypass calculation of the second partial similarity, wherein an index to the query vector is at a value when the first partial similarity measurement is determined. Next, the limitation “in response to the second partial similarity measurement of the first candidate vector being bypassed, increment, with the first processing engine, the value of the index” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person in response to the second partial similarity measurement of the first candidate vector being bypassed, increment, with the first processing engine, the value of the index. Further, the limitation “determine, with the first processing engine, whether to bypass a similarity computation of a third candidate vector based on a partial similarity measurement that is to be determined based on a feature value of the third candidate vector and a feature value of the query vector, wherein the feature value of the third candidate vector and the feature value of the query vector are both associated with the incremented value of the index” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with the first processing engine, whether to bypass a similarity computation of a third candidate vector based on a partial similarity measurement that is to be determined based on a feature value of the third candidate vector and a feature value of the query vector, wherein the feature value of the third candidate vector and the feature value of the query vector are both associated with the incremented value of the index. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 13 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “store the second total similarity measurement and a plurality of similarity measurements in a max-heap binary tree or a min-heap binary tree, wherein the plurality of similarity measurements is to be determined based on different candidate vectors and the query vector, wherein the total similarity measurement is to be larger than each of the plurality of similarity measurements.” of dependent claim 14 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Next, the limitation “identify a final vector from the candidate vectors that corresponds to a shortest distance of the plurality of similarity measurements” of dependent claim 14 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Next, the limitation “output the final vector as a closet match to the query vector” of dependent claim 14 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Next, the claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs. indicates mere data outputting is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 14 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “store a plurality of candidate vectors in a plurality of ping-pong buffers” of dependent claim 15 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Next, the limitation is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs. indicates mere data gathering is extra solution activity.
In addition, the limitation “determine, with the plurality of processing engines, a plurality of partial similarity measurements based on first parts of a plurality of query vectors and first parts of the plurality of candidate vectors” of dependent claim 15 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with the plurality of processing engines, a plurality of partial similarity measurements based on first portions of a plurality of query vectors and first portions of the plurality of candidate vectors. Next, the limitation “determine, with the plurality of processing engines, that similarity computations associated with a first subset of the plurality of candidate vectors are to be bypassed based on a first subset of the plurality of partial similarity measurements and a first plurality of total similarity measurements” of dependent claim 15 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with the plurality of processing engines, that similarity computations associated with a first subset of the plurality of candidate vectors are to be bypassed based on a first subset of the plurality of partial similarity measurements and first total similarity measurements. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 15 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “determine, with a group of the plurality of processing engines, that a second subset of the plurality of candidate vectors are to be processed based on a second subset of the plurality of partial similarity measurements and the first plurality of total similarity measurements” of dependent claim 16 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with a group of the plurality of processing engines, that a second subset of the plurality of candidate vectors are to be processed based on a second subset of the plurality of partial similarity measurements and the first total similarity measurements. Next, the limitation “determining, with the group of the plurality of processing engines, a second plurality of total similarity measurements based on the second subset of the plurality of candidate vectors and the plurality of query vectors” of dependent claim 16 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with the plurality of processing engines, that similarity computations associated with a first subset of the plurality of candidate vectors are to be bypassed based on a first subset of the plurality of partial similarity measurements and first total similarity measurements.
The limitation “store each respective total similarity measurement of the second plurality of total similarity measurements into different heap memories based on an identification of a query vector of the plurality of query vectors associated with the respective total similarity measurement, wherein each of the different heap memories is dedicated to one of the plurality of query vectors.” of dependent claim 16 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Next, the limitation is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs. indicates mere data gathering is extra solution activity. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 16 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the logic coupled to the one or more substrates includes transistor channel regions that are positioned within the one or more substrates” of dependent claim 17 is abstract because the claim encompasses generic computer components. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 17 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 18-25 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 18 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium performing steps and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 18 recites at least one computer readable storage medium comprising a set of executable program instructions, which when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to:
determine, with a first processing engine of a plurality of processing engines, a first partial similarity measurement based on a first portion of a query vector and a first portion of a first candidate vector;
determine, with a second processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, a total similarity measurement based on the query vector and a second candidate vector;
determine the first partial similarity measurement is greater than the second total similarity measurement and prune calculation of the second partial similarity measurement to bypass calculation of the first total similarity measurement. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. That is other than reciting “at least one computer readable storage medium”, “a computing system”, and “processing engine” nothing in the claim’s elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 18 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for a first processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, “determine, with a first processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, a first partial similarity measurement based on a first portion of a query vector and a first portion of a first candidate vector” encompasses mentally a person determine a first partial similarity measurement based on a first portion of a query vector and a first portion of a first candidate vector.
Next, but for a second processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, “determine, with a second processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, a total similarity measurement based on the query vector and a second candidate vector” encompasses mentally a person determine a total similarity measurement based on the query vector and a second candidate vector.
In addition, but for the first processing engine, “determine the first partial similarity measurement is greater than the second total similarity measurement and prune calculation of the second partial similarity measurement to bypass calculation of the first total similarity measurement” encompasses mentally a person determine when the first partial similarity measurement is greater than the second total similarity measurement and prune calculation of the second partial similarity measurement to bypass calculation of the first total similarity measurement.
The mere nominal recitation of “at least one computer readable storage medium”, “a computing system”, and “processing engine” do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim as a whole merely describes determining similarity between candidate vectors. The claimed elements of “at least one computer readable storage medium”, “a computing system”, and “processing engine” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 18 recites generic computer components (i.e., “at least one computer readable storage medium”, “a computing system”, and “processing engine”). Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere use of generic computer components to determine similarity between candidate vectors cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 18 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the first partial similarity measurement is to be a partial distance and the total similarity measurement is a total distance.” of dependent claim 19 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person comparing, with the first processing engine, the second portion of the query vector to the second portion of the first candidate vector in response to the first partial similarity measurement being less than the total similarity measurement, wherein the first partial similarity measurement is to be a partial distance and the total similarity measurement is to be a total distance. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 19 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “retrieve, with the plurality of processing engines, different candidate vectors” of dependent claim 20 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Next, the limitation is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs. indicates mere data gathering is extra solution activity.
In addition, the limitation “determine, with the plurality of processing engines, a plurality of partial similarity measurements between first parts of the query vector and first parts of the different candidate vectors” of dependent claim 20 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with the plurality of processing engines, a plurality of partial similarity measurements between first portions of the query vector and first portions of the different candidate vectors. Next, the limitation “determine, with the plurality of processing engines, whether to bypass partial similarity computations between second parts of the query vector and second parts of the different candidate vectors based on the plurality of partial similarity measurements and the second total similarity measurement” of dependent claim 20 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with the plurality of processing engines, whether to bypass partial similarity computations between second portions of the query vector and second portions of the different candidate vectors based on the plurality of partial similarity measurements and the total similarity measurement. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 20 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “access a plurality of memory storage areas that are each dedicated to one of the plurality of processing engines, wherein the plurality of memory storage areas is to store the different candidate vectors, wherein the different candidate vectors are to represent a vector candidate database” of dependent claim 21 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Next, the claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs. indicates mere data gathering is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 21 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “determine, with the first processing engine, to bypass calculation of the second partial similarity measurement, wherein an index to the query vector is at a value when the first partial similarity measurement is determined” of dependent claim 22 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with the first processing engine, to bypass a partial similarity computation of the first candidate vector based on the first partial similarity measurement and the total similarity measurement, wherein an index to the query vector is at a value when the first partial similarity measurement is determined. Next, the limitation “in response to the second partial similarity measurement being bypassed, increment, with the first processing engine, the value of the index” of dependent claim 22 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person in response to the partial similarity computation being bypassed, increment, with the first processing engine, the value of the index. Further, the limitation “determine, with the first processing engine, whether to bypass a similarity computation of a third candidate vector based on a partial similarity measurement that is to be determined based on a feature value of the third candidate vector and a feature value of the query vector, wherein the feature value of the third candidate vector and the feature value of the query vector are both associated with the incremented value of the index” of dependent claim 22 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with the first processing engine, whether to bypass a similarity computation of a third candidate vector based on a partial similarity measurement that is to be determined based on a feature value of the third candidate vector and a feature value of the query vector, wherein the feature value of the third candidate vector and the feature value of the query vector are both associated with the incremented value of the index. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 22 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “store the second total similarity measurement and a plurality of similarity measurements in a max-heap binary tree or a min-heap binary tree, wherein the plurality of similarity measurements is to be determined based on different candidate vectors and the query vector, wherein the total similarity measurement is to be larger than each of the plurality of similarity measurements.” of dependent claim 23 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the limitation “identify a final vector from the candidate vectors that corresponds to a shortest distance of the plurality of similarity measurements” of dependent claim 23 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, the limitation “output the final vector as a closet match to the query vector” of dependent claim 23 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Next, the claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs. indicates mere data outputting is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 23 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “store a plurality of candidate vectors in a plurality of ping-pong buffers” of dependent claim 24 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Next, the limitation is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs. indicates mere data gathering is extra solution activity.
In addition, the limitation “determine, with the plurality of processing engines, a plurality of partial similarity measurements based on first parts of a plurality of query vectors and first parts of the plurality of candidate vectors” of dependent claim 24 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with the plurality of processing engines, a plurality of partial similarity measurements based on first parts of a plurality of query vectors and first parts of the plurality of candidate vectors. Next, the limitation “determine, with the plurality of processing engines, that similarity computations associated with a first subset of the plurality of candidate vectors are to be bypassed based on a first subset of the plurality of partial similarity measurements and a first plurality of total similarity measurements” of dependent claim 24 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with the plurality of processing engines, that similarity computations associated with a first subset of the plurality of candidate vectors are to be bypassed based on a first subset of the plurality of partial similarity measurements and a first plurality of total similarity measurements. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 24 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “determine, with a group of the plurality of processing engines, that a second subset of the plurality of candidate vectors are to be processed based on a second subset of the plurality of partial similarity measurements and the first plurality of total similarity measurements” of dependent claim 25 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with a group of the plurality of processing engines, that a second subset of the plurality of candidate vectors are to be processed based on a second subset of the plurality of partial similarity measurements and the first plurality of total similarity measurements. Next, the limitation “determining, with the group of the plurality of processing engines, a second plurality of total similarity measurements based on the second subset of the plurality of candidate vectors and the plurality of query vectors” of dependent claim 25 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, with the plurality of processing engines, that similarity computations associated with a first subset of the plurality of candidate vectors are to be bypassed based on a first subset of the plurality of partial similarity measurements and first total similarity measurements. The limitation “store each respective total similarity measurement of the second plurality of total similarity measurements into different heap memories based on an identification of a query vector of the plurality of query vectors associated with the respective total similarity measurement, wherein each of the different heap memories is dedicated to one of the plurality of query vectors.” of dependent claim 25 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Next, the limitation is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs. indicates mere data gathering is extra solution activity. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 25 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 of this title, 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, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaul et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2017/0139948; hereinafter: Kaul) in view of Xu et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2022/0327128; hereinafter: Xu) and further in view of Jain et al. U.S. Patent (5,915,250; hereinafter: Jain)
Claims 1 and 18
As to claims 1, 9, and 18, Kaul discloses a computing system comprising:
a system-on-chip that is to include a plurality of processing engines (paragraph[0088], the reference describes processors (i.e., a plurality of processing engines, as claimed).); and
a memory including a set of executable program instructions, which when executed by the system-on-chip, cause the computing system to (paragraph[0109], the reference describes using memory and processors to implementing the steps.):
determine, with a first processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, a first partial similarity measurement based on a first portion of a query vector and a first portion of a first candidate vector (paragraph[0032], the reference describes inputting (i.e., determine, as claimed) a query vector (i.e., a first portion of a query vector, as claimed) into a plurality of vector partial distance computation circuits (i.e., a first portion of a first candidate vector, as claimed).);
Kaul does not appear to explicitly disclose determine, with a second processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, a total similarity measurement based on the query vector and a second candidate vector; and
determine that the first partial similarity measurement is greater than the second total similarity measurement and prune calculation of the second partial similarity measurement to bypass calculation of the first total similarity measurement.
However, Xu discloses determine, with a second processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, a total similarity measurement based on the query vector and a second candidate vector (paragraph[0024], the reference describes calculating a similarity distance between a vector (i.e., query vector, as claimed) and a candidate vector (i.e., a second candidate vector, as claimed). The Examiner interprets the vector as being the same vector in Kaul.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Kaul with the teachings of Xu to compare different vectors which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Kaul with the teachings of Xu to efficiently perform vector similarity querying without additional hardware optimization (Xu: paragraph[0002]).
The combination of Kaul and Xu do not appear to explicitly disclose determine that the first partial similarity measurement is greater than the second total similarity measurement and prune calculation of the second partial similarity measurement to bypass calculation of the first total similarity measurement.
However, Jain further discloses determine that the first partial similarity measurement is greater than the second total similarity measurement and prune calculation of the second partial similarity measurement to bypass calculation of the first total similarity measurement (Column 24, lines 38-64, the reference describes to determining if the similarity partial final score of a vector (i.e., similarity measurement, as claimed) and score of a vector are great than a threshold. If true, then the process is aborted (i.e., bypassed, as claimed). In addition, the Examiner interprets this limitation as being optional because of the terms when the first partial similarity measurement is greater than. The limitation would not occur if the first partial similarity measurement is equal to the second total similarity measurement.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Kaul with the teachings of Xu and Jain to bypass calculations which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Kaul with the teachings of Xu and Jain to efficiently perform an extensible system for retrieval of stored visual objects based on similarity of content to a target visual object (Jain: column 1, lines 22-25).
Claim 9
As to claim 9, Kaul discloses a semiconductor apparatus comprising:
one or more substrates(paragraph[0088], the reference describes processors (i.e., a plurality of processing engines, as claimed).); and
logic coupled to the one or more substrates, wherein the logic is implemented in one or more of configurable logic hardware or fixed-functionality logic hardware, the logic coupled to the one or more substrates to(paragraph[0088], the reference describes processors (i.e., a plurality of processing engines, as claimed).):
determine, with a first processing engine of a plurality of processing engines, a first partial similarity measurement based on a first portion of a query vector and a first portion of a first candidate vector(paragraph[0032], the reference describes inputting (i.e., determine, as claimed) a query vector (i.e., a first portion of a query vector, as claimed) into a plurality of vector partial distance computation circuits (i.e., a first portion of a first candidate vector, as claimed).);
Kaul does not appear to explicitly disclose determine, with a second processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, a second total similarity measurement based on the query vector and a second candidate vector; and
determine the first partial similarity measurement is greater than a threshold and prune calculation of the second partial similarity measurement to bypass calculation of the first total similarity measurement, wherein the threshold is a longest distance as determined from a top k distances.
However, Xu discloses determine, with a second processing engine of the plurality of processing engines, a second total similarity measurement based on the query vector and a second candidate vector(paragraph[0024], the reference describes calculating a similarity distance between a vector (i.e., query vector, as claimed) and a candidate vector (i.e., a second candidate vector, as claimed). The Examiner interprets the vector as being the same vector in Kaul.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Kaul with the teachings of Xu to compare different vectors which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Kaul with the teachings of Xu to efficiently perform vector similarity querying without additional hardware optimization (Xu: paragraph[0002]).
The combination of Kaul and Xu do not appear to explicitly disclose determine the first partial similarity measurement is greater than a threshold and prune calculation of the second partial similarity measurement to bypass calculation of the first total similarity measurement, wherein the threshold is a longest distance as determined from a top k distances.
However, Jain further discloses determine the first partial similarity measurement is greater than a threshold and prune calculation of the second partial similarity measurement to bypass calculation of the first total similarity measurement, wherein the threshold is a longest distance as determined from a top k distances (Column 24, lines 38-64, the reference describes to determining if the similarity partial final score of a vector (i.e., similarity measurement, as claimed) and score of a vector are great than a threshold. If true, then the process is aborted (i.e., bypassed, as claimed). Paragraph[0019] describes the threshold being a similarly distance (i.e., a longest distance, as claimed) In addition, the Examiner interprets this limitation as being optional because of the terms when the first partial similarity measurement is greater than. The limitation would not occur if the first partial similarity measurement is equal to the second total similarity measurement.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Kaul with the teachings of Xu and Jain to bypass calculations which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Kaul with the teachings of Xu and Jain to efficiently perform an extensible system for retrieval of stored visual objects based on similarity of content to a target visual object (Jain: column 1, lines 22-25).
Claims 3, 11, and 20
As to claims 3, 11, and 20, the combination of Kaul, Xu, and Jain discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, Xu further disclose wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the computing system to:
retrieve, with the plurality of processing engines, different candidate vectors (paragraph[0062], the reference describes querying (i.e., retrieve, as claimed) candidate vector set candidate vectors.);
determine, with the plurality of processing engines, a plurality of partial similarity measurements between first parts of the query vector and first parts of the different candidate vectors (paragraph[0063], the reference describes determining which of the candidate vectors are close (i.e., measurements, as claimed) to the object vector (i.e., query vector, as claimed).); and
determine, with the plurality of processing engines, whether to bypass partial similarity computations between second parts of the query vector and second parts of the different candidate vectors based on the plurality of partial similarity measurements and the total second similarity measurement (paragraph[0066], the reference describes sorting (i.e., bypass partial similarity, as claimed) between candidate vectors and object vectors.).
Claims 4, 12, and 21
As to claims 4, 12, and 21, the combination of Kaul, Xu, and Jain discloses all the elements in claim 3, as noted above, Xu further disclose wherein the system-on-chip is to include a plurality of memory storage areas that are each dedicated to one of the plurality of processing engines, wherein the plurality of memory storage areas is to store the different candidate vectors, wherein the different candidate vectors are to represent a vector candidate database (paragraph[0037], the reference describes memory modules (figure 1, element 106) storing candidate vectors.).
Claims 2, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaul et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2017/0139948; hereinafter: Kaul) in view of Xu et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2022/0327128; hereinafter: Xu) and further in view of Jain et al. U.S. Patent (5,915,250; hereinafter: Jain) and further in view of ISHII U.S. Patent Publication (2019/0012378; hereinafter: ISHII)
Claims 2, 10, and 19
As to claims 2, 10, and 19, the combination of Kaul, Xu, and Jain discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first partial similarity measurement is to be a partial distance and the first total similarity measurement is a total distance.
However, ISHII discloses wherein the first partial similarity measurement is to be a partial distance and the first total similarity measurement is a total distance (paragraph[0046], the reference describes comparing vectors based on a threshold.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Kaul with the teachings of Xu and ISHII to display results of a recursive query which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Kaul with the teachings of Xu and ISHII to efficiently determines a degree of similarity without being limited to Euclidean distance and that are capable of speeding up a search process without degrading the k-nearest neighbor accuracy rate (ISHII: paragraph[0014]).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent (8,015,190) teaches identifying pairs of similar vectors in a set of vectors.
Final
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571) 270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann J. Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. 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 PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 April 24, 2026
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024
Prosecution Insights