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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 11 - 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/26/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1- 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the limitations “provide the episodic memory” fails to clearly define what the structure is or what exactly is being done. The examiner will interpret the claims as if the episodic object memory provides an output.
Claims 2 - 10 depend on claim 1 and are also rejected.
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 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One
The claims are directed to a method (claims 1 - 10). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
As to claim 1,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
determining that one or more embeddings of the collection of embeddings are landmark memory embeddings;
For example, a human mentally compares past experiences and choosing the most memorable one as the reference.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
receiving one or more content items, the content items each having one or more content data;
receiving, from one or more of the embedding models, a collection of embeddings, wherein each embedding of the collection of embeddings corresponds to at least one content data from a respective content item;
inserting the one or more landmark memory embeddings into the episodic object memory, wherein the one or more landmark memory embeddings are associated with a reference to related data associated with the one or more landmark memory embeddings;
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim further recites:
providing the one or more content data associated with the one or more content items to one or more embedding models, wherein the one or more embedding models generate one or more embeddings;
providing the episodic object memory.
these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The recitation of landmark memory embedding and episodic object memory amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
receiving one or more content items, the content items each having one or more content data;
receiving, from one or more of the embedding models, a collection of embeddings, wherein each embedding of the collection of embeddings corresponds to at least one content data from a respective content item;
inserting the one or more landmark memory embeddings into the episodic object memory, wherein the one or more landmark memory embeddings are associated with a reference to related data associated with the one or more landmark memory embeddings;
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim further recites:
providing the one or more content data associated with the one or more content items to one or more embedding models, wherein the one or more embedding models generate one or more embeddings;
providing the episodic object memory.
are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
The recitation of landmark memory embedding and episodic object memory amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 2,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the same abstract idea identified in claim 2 above
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the insertion triggers a spatial storage operation to store a vector representation of the landmark memory embeddings, and wherein the vector representation is stored in at least one of an approximate nearest
neighbor (ANN) tree, a k-d tree, or a multidimensional tree.
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The recitation of spatial storage operation amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the insertion triggers a spatial storage operation to store a vector representation of the landmark memory embeddings, and wherein the vector representation is stored in at least one of an approximate nearest
neighbor (ANN) tree, a k-d tree, or a multidimensional tree.
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The recitation of spatial storage operation amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 3,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the determining comprises ranking the one or more of the embeddings based on a dissimilarity to at least one of the other embeddings of the collection of embeddings
For example, a human can rank the embeddings using a pencil and paper to determine which embeddings is the most similar.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
inserting comprises storing an indication of the rankings corresponding to the landmark memory embeddings.
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
inserting comprises storing an indication of the rankings corresponding to the landmark memory embeddings.
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 4,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
comparing the score to a threshold to identify that one or more embeddings of the collection of embeddings are landmark memory embeddings.
For example, a human can mentally determine if the score is above or below a threshold.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
obtaining a machine-learning model that was previously-trained to identify
landmark memories;
providing the collection of embeddings to the machine-learning model;
receiving a score from the machine-learning model corresponding to a degree to which embeddings are landmark memory embeddings;
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
obtaining a machine-learning model that was previously-trained to identify
landmark memories;
providing the collection of embeddings to the machine-learning model;
receiving a score from the machine-learning model corresponding to a degree to which embeddings are landmark memory embeddings;
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 5,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 4, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
prior to the comparing: receiving user-input corresponding to the threshold, wherein the threshold is a threshold of episodic memory.
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
prior to the comparing: receiving user-input corresponding to the threshold, wherein the threshold is a threshold of episodic memory.
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 6,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 4, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
the user-input is received from a slider of a graphical user-interface
these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the user-input is received from a slider of a graphical user-interface
are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 7,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 4, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
the content data are one or more of audio content data, visual content data, gaze content data, weather content data, news content data, calendar content data, email content data, or location content data.
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the content data are one or more of audio content data, visual content data, gaze content data, weather content data, news content data, calendar content data, email content data, or location content data.
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 8,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 4, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
the episodic object memory is stored at a location that is different than a location of source data corresponding to the content items.
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the episodic object memory is stored at a location that is different than a location of source data corresponding to the content items.
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 9,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 4, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
the one or more landmark memory embeddings comprise a set of properties that define a schema
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the one or more landmark memory embeddings comprise a set of properties that define a schema
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 10,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 4, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
the set of properties comprise a summary of the landmark memory embeddings and the reference to related data.
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the set of properties comprise a summary of the landmark memory embeddings and the reference to related data.
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 7 - 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng et al (US 2020/0210929) in view of KARLAPATI et al (US 2022/0415304).
As to claim 1, Meng et al teaches a method for storing a landmark memory embedding in an episodic object memory (paragraph [0012]…disclosed embodiments provide a method, apparatus, and system for modeling sequences of jobs using word embeddings of the jobs' attributes), the method comprising:
receiving one or more content items, the content items each having one or more
content data (paragraph [0034]…Data 202 in data repository 134 may further be updated using records of recent activity received over one or more event streams 200… an event containing a record of a recent profile update, job search, job view, job application, response to a job application, connection invitation, post, like, comment, share, and/or other recent member activity within or outside the community may be generated in response to the activity. The record may then be propagated to components subscribing to event streams 200 on a nearline basis)(Examiner’s Note: “event streams 200” reads on “receiving one or more content items” ; “an event containing a record of a recent profile update, job search, job view, job application, response to a job application, connection invitation, post, like, comment, share, and/or other recent member activity within or outside the community” reads on “the content items each having one or more content data”);
providing the one or more content data associated with the one or more content items to one or more embedding models, wherein the one or more embedding models generate one or more embeddings (paragraph [0037]…a model-creation apparatus 210 creates a word embedding model 208 from attributes in job histories 212. After word embedding model 208 is created, word embedding model 208 generates embeddings 214 based on attributes in profile data 216 and/or jobs data 218. For example, word embedding model 208 may be a word2vec model that outputs embeddings 214 in a vector space based on groupings of standardized attributes in job histories 212 from data repository 134) (Examiner’s Note: “word embedding model 208 is created, word embedding model 208 generates embeddings 214 based on attributes in profile data 216 and/or jobs data 218” reads on “providing the one or more content data associated with the one or more content items to one or more embedding models, wherein the one or more embedding models generate one or more embeddings” );
receiving, from one or more of the embedding models, a collection of embeddings, wherein each embedding of the collection of embeddings corresponds to at least one content data from a respective content item (paragraph [0038]… word embedding model 208 may capture patterns and/or semantic relationships among titles and/or other attributes in job histories 212, so that similarities and/or trends in the attributes within job histories 212 are reflected in distances among embeddings 214 outputted by word embedding model 208) (Examiner’s Note: “embeddings 214” reads on “collection of embeddings” ; “patterns and/or semantic relationships among titles and/or other attributes in job histories 212, so that similarities and/or trends in the attributes within job histories 212 are reflected in distances among embeddings 214” reads on “wherein each embedding of the collection of embeddings corresponds to at least one content data from a respective content item”);
determining that one or more embeddings of the collection of embeddings are
landmark memory embeddings (paragraph [0041]…job embeddings 220 include collections of embeddings 214 outputted by word embedding model 208 for individual jobs in job sequence 220. For example, sequence-modeling apparatus 204 may input the title, company, industry, and/or other attributes of each job in a member's job history into word embedding model 208, and word embedding model 208 may output an embedding of the inputted attribute(s) as a fixed-length vector representation of the job. Multiple embeddings of jobs from the job history may then be collected into a set of job embeddings 222 for the job history)(Examiner’s Note: “job embeddings 220 include collections of embeddings 214 outputted by word embedding model 208 for individual jobs in job sequence 220” reads on “determining that one or more embeddings of the collection of embeddings are landmark memory embedding” ; The applicant teaches in paragraph [0029] of the current application that the landmark memories described herein may be memories that a system and/or user distinguishes as important, unique, and/or distinct from other memories that may be stored, therefore the examiner interprets that each individual job is important, unique, and/or distinct from other memories );
inserting the one or more landmark memory embeddings into the memory, wherein the one or more landmark memory embeddings are associated with a reference to related data associated with the one or more landmark memory embeddings (paragraph [0044]…after power means 224 with known and/or fixed parameter values 226 are calculated for job embeddings 222 associated with a given job sequence 220, sequence-modeling apparatus 204 may store power means 224 as one or more fixed-length encoded representations of job sequence 220 in data repository 134 for subsequent retrieval and use. Sequence-modeling apparatus 204 may also, or instead, provide power means 224 to model-creation apparatus 210, a management apparatus 206, and/or another component of the system for use in generating additional models and/or recommendations 244 using the features) (Examiner’s Note: “sequence-modeling apparatus 204 may store power means 224 as one or more fixed-length encoded representations of job sequence 220 in data repository 134 for subsequent retrieval and use” reads on “inserting the one or more landmark memory embeddings into the memory” ; “one or more fixed-length encoded representations of job sequence 220” reads on “wherein the one or more landmark memory embeddings are associated with a reference to related data associated with the one or more landmark memory embeddings”).
Meng et al fails to explicitly show/teach that the memory is an episodic object memory and proving said episodic object memory.
However, KARLAPATI et al teaches a memory is a episodic object memory and proving said episodic object memory (paragraph [0040]… Episodic memory 308 includes collection of memory slots 508 to store discarded short-term information is stored in a compressed form using a compression function 502. In some embodiments, the compression is done in one or more ways. When incremental episodic memory is used, discarded short-term information is stored into a compressed representation. This works in a sequential manner. That is as “new” short-term data is to be stored, it is compressed along with previous compressed data. In some embodiments, a trainable compression function is used which takes as input the discarded information, and the previously compressed information, to generate a new compressed representation of information. In some embodiments, this is performed using an LSTM. In other embodiments, an attention-based mechanism (e.g., aspects of a transformer) is used. In some embodiments, a lossy reconstruction loss is utilized with an aim to recreate the previous short-term memory embeddings which were compressed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made for Meng et al’s memory to be an episodic object memory and proving said episodic object memory, as in KARLAPATI et al, for the purpose of the memory being stored in a compressed form.
As to claim 3, Meng et al teaches the method where the determining comprises ranking the one or more of the embeddings based on a dissimilarity to at least one of the other embeddings of the collection of embeddings, and wherein the inserting comprises storing an indication of the rankings corresponding to the landmark memory embedding (paragraph [0026]… data in data repository 134 and one or more machine learning models are used to produce rankings of candidates for jobs or opportunities listed within or outside online network 118. The candidates may include users who have viewed, searched for, or applied to jobs, positions, roles, and/or opportunities, within or outside online network 118. The candidates may also, or instead, include users and/or members of online network 118 with skills, work experience, and/or other attributes or qualifications that match the corresponding jobs, positions, roles, and/or opportunities)(Examiner’s Note: “data in data repository 134 and one or more machine learning models are used to produce rankings of candidates for jobs or opportunities” reads on “ranking the one or more of the embeddings based on a dissimilarity… wherein the inserting comprises storing an indication of the rankings corresponding to the landmark memory embedding”).
As to claim 7, Meng et al teaches the method wherein the content data are one or more of audio content data, visual content data, gaze content data, weather content data, news content data, calendar content data, email content data, or location content data (paragraph [0029]… profile data 216 for an online professional network may include a set of attributes for each user, such as demographic (e.g., gender, age range, nationality, location, language), professional (e.g., job title, professional summary, employer, industry, experience, skills, seniority level, professional endorsements), social (e.g., organizations of which the user is a member, geographic area of residence), and/or educational (e.g., degree, university attended, certifications, publications) attributes. Profile data 216 may also include a set of groups to which the user belongs, the user's contacts and/or connections, and/or other data related to the user's interaction with the online system).
As to claim 8, modified Meng et al teaches the method, wherein the episodic object memory is stored at a location that is different than a location of source data corresponding to the content items (paragraph [0029]…online network 118 includes functionality to improve the timeliness, relevance, and/or accuracy of job recommendations outputted to the candidates. As shown in FIG. 2, data repository 134 and/or another primary data store may be queried for data 202 that includes profile data 216 for members of an online system (e.g., online network 118 of FIG. 1), as well as jobs data 218 for jobs that are listed or described within or outside the online system) (Examiner’s Note: “data repository 134 and/or another primary data store” reads on “wherein the episodic object memory is stored at a location that is different than a location of source data corresponding to the content items”).
As to claim 9, Meng et al teaches the method, wherein the one or more landmark memory embeddings comprise a set of properties that define a schema (paragraph [0012]…the word embedding model may convert titles and/or other attributes in the job histories into embeddings that are vector representations of the attributes. As a result, the word embedding model may capture patterns and/or semantic relationships among titles in the users' job histories) (Examiner’s Note: “embeddings that are vector representations of the attributes” reads on “one or more landmark memory embeddings comprise a set of properties that define a schema”).
As to claim 10, Meng et al teaches the method, wherein the set of properties comprise a summary of the landmark memory embeddings and the reference to related data (paragraph [0013]…the word embedding model is then used to produce embeddings of attributes in sequences of jobs. For example, the word embedding model may be applied to a company, title, and/or other attribute of each job in a job sequence to produce an embedding that is a vector representation of the attribute(s)) (Examiner’s Note: “he word embedding model may be applied to a company, title, and/or other attribute of each job in a job sequence to produce an embedding that is a vector representation of the attribute(s)” reads on “wherein the set of properties comprise a summary of the landmark memory embeddings and the reference to related data”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off).
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, Omar Fernandez can be reached at 571-272-2589]. 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.
/BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights