CTNF 18/364,664 CTNF 90847 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. As to claims 1 , Step 1: Statutory Category The claims as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories. Step 2A – Prong One: Judicial Exception Recited At least claim 1 recites limitations that are abstract ideas. The limitations “ initiate a traversal of a directed graph in response to a query, retrieve the plurality of vectors from the DRAM during the traversal of the directed graph, wherein each vector in the plurality of vectors is compressed, decompress the plurality of vectors during the traversal of the directed graph, determine a similarity between the query and the decompressed plurality of vectors during the traversal of the directed graph, and generate a response to the query based on the similarity between the query and the decompressed plurality of vectors ” is a mental process. Simply navigating a graph structure (“… initiate a traversal of a directed graph in response to a query… ”) to find a match (“… determine a similarity between the query and the decompressed plurality of vectors during the traversal of the directed graph …”) is viewed as a high-level automation of what a human could technically do with a pen a paper. Wherein the limitation “ and generate a response to the query based on the similarity between the query and the decompressed plurality of vectors ” is basically trying to monopolize a basic computer function. Step 2A - Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application Furthermore, claim 1 recites “ a network controller; a processor coupled to the network controller; and a dynamic random access memory (DRAM) coupled to the processor, wherein the DRAM is to store a plurality of vectors and a set of instructions, which when executed by the processor ”. It is noted that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application. Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept The conclusions for the additional elements (such as a network controller, a processor , and a DRAM ) representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible. As to claim 2 , the limitation “ wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to determine bound constants for the plurality of vectors on a per-vector basis, and wherein the plurality of vectors are decompressed based on the bound constants, a dimensionality of the plurality of vectors, and a bit length associated with the plurality of vectors ” describes a decompression in a mathematical formula giving determined bound constants, vectors bit lengths. These additional limitations cover mathematical concepts and do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. As to claim 3 , the limitation “ wherein the bound constants are to include an upper bound constant and a lower bound constant ” describes a more detailed bound constants including upper and lower bound constant. The additional limitation covers mathematical concepts and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. As to claim 4 , the limitations “ wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to: compress the plurality of vectors based on a mean of the plurality of vectors, the bound constants, the dimensionality of the plurality of vectors, and the bit length associated with the plurality of vectors, and build the directed graph based on the compressed plurality of vectors ” include more mathematical expressions of vectors, bound constants, vector dimensions, the directed graph. These additional limitations cover mathematical concepts and do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. As to claim 5 , the limitations “ wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to: re-compute the mean of the plurality of vectors, and re-compress the plurality of vectors based on the re-computed mean of the plurality of vectors ” provide no more details of the above identified mathematical expressions. Merely to re-compute is viewed as a high-level recitation of generic computer components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application. Claims 6-10 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1-5 respectively. As to claim 11 , the limitation “ wherein the plurality of vectors are retrieved from the DRAM via one or more advanced vector extension instructions ” merely recites advance instructions rather than a specific algorithmic of how-to. Thus, it is rejected for trying to monopolize a basic computer function. As to claim 12 , the limitations “ wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the computing system to re-rank the plurality of vectors based on a plurality of residual vectors, and wherein the response is further generated based on the re-ranked plurality of vectors ” are viewed as a high-level automation of what a human could technically do with a pen and paper (re-ranking as to ranking one or more time). These additional limitations cover mathematical concepts and do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Claims 13-17 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1-5 respectively. Claims 18-19 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 11-12 respectively. As to claim 20 , the limitation “ the circuitry coupled to the one or more substrates includes transistor channel regions that are positioned within the one or more substrates ” is viewed as the additional element (such as a circuitry, transistor channel regions ) representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible. Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 6-11 are directed to “at least one computer readable storage medium”. The applicant’s specification is silent about the definition of the “at least one computer readable storage medium” and therefore may be broadly interpreted to include signal. As a result, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter. It is respectfully suggested to amend the claims to include “at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-20 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 , it recites “… determine a similarity between the query and the decompressed plurality of vectors during the traversal of the directed graph …” in which the “ similarity between the query and the decompressed plurality of vectors ” is viewed as indefinite because it is not clear how that similarity is measured. Thus, it renders the claim indefinite. Claims 2-5 are dependent on claim 1 and thus inherited the above deficiency. Claims 6-10 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1-5 respectively. Claims 11-12 are dependent on claim 6 and thus inherited the above deficiency. Claims 13-19 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 6-12 respectively. Claim 20 is dependent on claim 1 and thus inherited the above deficiency. Conclusion 07-96 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants’ disclosure: “Product Quantization for Nearest Neighbor Search”, Herve et al, 2009, 14 pages. “SPANN: Highly-efficient Billion-scale Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search”, Chen et al, 2021, 13 pages. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loc Tran whose telephone number is 571-272-8485. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm; First Fri Off. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Ng can be reached on (571)-270-1698. 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. /LOC TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/364,664 Page 2 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/364,664 Page 3 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/364,664 Page 4 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/364,664 Page 5 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/364,664 Page 6 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/364,664 Page 7 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/364,664 Page 8 Art Unit: 2164
Prosecution Insights