DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112
Applicant has amended the claims at issue, and the previous rejections have therefore been withdrawn. The Examiner notes page 11 of Applicant’s Remarks states claim 9 has been amended but claim 9 is not amended in the claims listing.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts even though the generate, evaluate, and unbundle steps of the claim involve a broad array of techniques and/or activities that any involve or rely upon mathematical concepts, the limitations do not set forth or describe any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or equations using words or mathematical symbols.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s assertion is conclusory and ignores the basis of the claims as operations on vectors. Vectors are mathematical array data structures (Wikipedia Array (data structure): “Arrays are used to implement mathematical vectors and matrices, as well as other kinds of rectangular tables.”), and thus operations performed on vectors as recited, as detailed in the rejection, are mathematical concepts.
Applicant asserts the human mind cannot practically perform the generate, evaluate, and unbundle steps on a high-dimensional vector.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0002] of Applicant’s specification states “High-dimensional (HD) computing refers to representing data as vectors with high dimensionality (e.g., vectors with more than three elements).” Therefore, a high-dimensional vector is a vector with at least four elements. The claimed generate, evaluate, and unbundle steps can be practically performed by the human mind with pencil and paper on a vector with four elements and thus a high-dimensional vector.
Applicant asserts the claims integrate any such abstract idea into a practical solution because the technical problem addressed by the inventions includes addressing the deficiencies of using brute force decoders as being slow and resource intensive, and resonators yielding inaccurate results which are methods that do not necessarily result in identifying component vectors that are 100% identical to actual component vectors superimposed (bundled) together to create the input vector.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The improvement of identifying component vectors that are 100% identical to actual component vectors superimposed together is a result of performing the mathematical operations to mathematically derive a first reduced vector from the composite vector, and the claims do not recite additional elements that impose meaningful limits on the execution of the method steps. Therefore, the improvement is a result of performing the abstract ideas. However, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicant asserts the invention provides a practical application through systems and methods for decoding high-dimensional vectors which is more accurate and efficient than current methods.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.
Applicant asserts claims 8, 17, and 19 each require the use of a resonator circuit which is a non-abstract system component performing the claimed methods of the invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The resonator circuit is recited at a high level of generality such that it is the equivalent of reciting “apply it” to the claimed methods. There are no suggestions that clearly indicates the resonator circuit imposes meaningful limits on performing the claimed methods.
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/21/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the resonator circuit must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 10-18 will be addressed first.
Regarding claim 10, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Machine).
At Step 2A Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claims are directed towards an abstract. The claim language has been reproduced below:
A system, comprising: a memory;
and a central processing unit (CPU) coupled to the memory, the CPU configured to:
receive a composite high-dimensional vector;
generate, a first candidate component vector (mathematical calculation);
evaluate the first candidate component vector to determine that the first candidate component vector is likely to be superimposed into the composite vector (mental process and/or mathematical relationship);
select, based on the evaluating, the first candidate component vector as an accurate component vector (mental process);
and unbundle the first candidate component vector from the composite vector, resulting in a first reduced vector (mental process and/or mathematical calculation).
Explanation of the mental process analysis of the limitations are as follows: The evaluate as recited is described in [0065] as calculating the similarity of the candidate component vector to the query vector, which may be reasonably performed by the human mind with example vectors similar to those discussed in [0026] of specification with an additional data element. The select as recited is described in [0067] as identifying a component vector corresponding to high confidence based on the evaluation results, which may be reasonably performed by the human mind. The unbundle as recited is described in [0026] as subtracting the component vector from the query vector, which may be reasonably performed by the human mind. It is noted that only the select limitation does not have additional analysis in a basis for mathematical concepts. Furthermore, vectors are a series of values as described in [0026] and [0047] of Applicant’s specification, and thus interactions and operations on vectors are mathematical relationships or calculations.
At Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements are bolded above. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations “memory” and “central processing unit (CPU) coupled to the memory” are merely generic computer components recited at a high level of generality that does no more than recite the equivalent of “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement on a computer. The limitation “receive a composite high-dimensional vector” is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B, the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As set forth in step 2A prong 2 analysis, the functions of receiving data is recognized by the courts as well-understood routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Furthermore, the “memory” and “central processing unit (CPU) coupled to the memory” are the equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception and are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claims 11-13, the claims merely recite functions for additional generating, evaluating, selecting, and unbundling for different component vectors that further mathematically limit the mathematical concepts, or provide additional mathematical functions, of claim 10. They do not include additional elements that would require further analysis under steps 2A prong 2 and step 2B.
Regarding claim 14, it is directed to the mathematical concepts of “unbinding a set of estimate code vectors”, “calculating a similarity of each estimate code vector”, and “codebook”. The codebooks are collections of code vectors as described in [0021] of Applicant’s specification, and thus a mathematical relationship.
The claim does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under steps 2A prong 2 and step 2B.
Regarding claim 15, it is directed to the mathematical concept and/or mental process of “generating”, “identifying”, “selecting”, and “binding”. The identifying limitation is described as selecting the set of codebooks based on properties of the composite object in [0022] of Applicant’s specification, which may be reasonably performed by the human mind.
The claim does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under steps 2A prong 2 and step 2B.
Regarding claim 16, the claim merely recites functions for calculating similarity that further mathematically limit the mathematical concepts, or provide additional mathematical functions, of claim 15. The claim does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under steps 2A prong 2 and step 2B.
Regarding claim 17, under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim recites additional element “resonator”. The additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the resonator is recited at a high level of generality and is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 18, it is directed to the mathematical concept and/or mental process of “brute force approach”. The brute force approach is described as generating all possible candidate component vectors from the code vectors [0031] of Applicant’s specification, which is a mathematical calculation and/or relationship.
The claim does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under steps 2A prong 2 and step 2B.
Regarding claims 1-9, the claims are directed to a method that would be practiced by the apparatus of claims 10-18, respectively. All steps performed by the method of claims 1-9 are executed by the apparatus in claims 10-18 as configured. The analysis of claims 10-18 applies equally to claims 1-9.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is directed to a method that would be practiced by the apparatus of claims 14, 15, and 17. All steps performed by the method of claim 19 are executed by the combination of the apparatus in claims 14, 15, and 17 as configured. The analysis of claims 14, 15, and 17 applies equally to claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, it is directed to the mathematical concept and/or mental process of “selecting… all estimate code vectors that are not the particular estimate code vector” and “unbinding”.
The claim does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under steps 2A prong 2 and step 2B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101 set forth in this Office Action.
As to claims 1, 10, 19, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including: decoding the composite vector by: generating, a first candidate component vector;
evaluating the first candidate component vector to determine that the first candidate component vector is likely to be superimposed into the composite vector;
selecting, based on the evaluating, the first candidate component vector as an accurate component vector; and
unbundling the first candidate component vector from the composite vector, resulting in a first reduced vector.
Hersche et al. (Near-channel classifier: symbiotic communication and classification in high-dimensional space, hereinafter “Hersche”) discloses generating estimated indices that maximize a scalar inner product value (Section 3.2). Hersche does not suggest evaluating or selecting the generated vector. Therefore, Hersche does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Shan et al. (US 20190251184 A1, hereinafter “Shan” discloses finding candidate answers to a query by comparing their similarity and returning the group of best candidate answers (Fig. 1). Shan does not suggest generating the candidate answers nor unbundling the candidate answer from the query. Therefore, Shan does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Frady et al. (Resonator networks for factoring distributed representations of data structures, hereinafter “Frady”) discloses factorization using a resonator network that estimates each factor until a solution is found (Section 3). Frady does not suggest unbundling the query vector. Therefore, Frady does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Karunaratne et al. (US 20220180167 A1, hereinafter “Karunaratne”) discloses [determining similarity scores between the query hypervector and support set of hypervectors to estimate a class of vectors based on the similarity scores (Fig. 3; [0052]). Karunaratne does not suggest generating the support hypervectors nor unbundling the query hypervector. Therefore, Karunaratne does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Xu et al. (US 20220327128 A1, hereinafter “Xu”) discloses querying an object vector for a set of candidate vectors that are closest to the object vector (Fig. 4; [0063]. Xu does not suggest generating the candidate vectors nor unbundling the object vectors. Therefore, Xu does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHAT N LE whose telephone number is (571)272-0546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew T Caldwell can be reached at (571) 272-3702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/P.N.L./
Phat LeExaminer, Art Unit 2182 (571) 272-0546
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights