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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on December 31, 2023.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites: “a plurality of processing node in communication…” The claims should read: “a plurality of processing nodes…” Appropriate correction is required.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to a “computer-readable medium” that is not limited to non-transitory signals. The “computer-readable medium” is only mentioned in [0006] of the instant specification and does not exclude signals; see MPEP 2106.03. Therefore, the claims may include signals and are ineligible.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined that step 2A, Prong that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
According to Step 1 of the analysis, in the instant case claims 1-7 are directed to a system, claims 8-14 are directed to a method, and claims 15-20 are directed to a computer-readable medium; for purposes of this rejection the “computer-readable medium” is being considered as statutory, but see the above rejection of claims 15-20. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Independent claim 1: considering Step 2A, Prong One, the limitations in claim 1 including: “execute a model on the received data set to generate a vector embeddings array representative of the received data;” and “identify temporal data associated with the vector embeddings array;” covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components.
MPEP 2106.04.(a)(2)(III) details “the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” The claimed “execut[ing]” and “identify[ing]” are observations, evaluations, and judgments. For example, a human is capable of writing generating a vector embeddings array representative of received data; this would be observation, evaluation, and judgment. A human is also capable of identifying temporal data as this would also be an observation, evaluation, and judgment.
Considering Step 2A, Prong Two, and Step 2B, claim 1 contains additional elements “a storage device,” “a plurality of processing node,” “receive a data set from a data source,” and “store the vector embeddings array with the associated temporal data in the storage device.” But the judicial exception in claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. The “storage device,” “processing node,” and storing the vector embeddings array in a storage device are generic components that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more under Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d). Additionally, the “receive a data set from a data source” is insignificant extra-solution activity; see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 2, dependent on claim 1, recites only additional elements and is rejected due to its dependence on rejected claim 1. However, if the language from claim 2 were to be incorporated into claim 1 the additional elements would be analyzed according to the two-step process.
Claim 3, dependent on claim 1, recites only additional elements and is rejected due to its dependence on rejected claim 1. However, if the language from claim 3 were to be incorporated into claim 1 the additional elements would be analyzed according to the two-step process.
Claim 4, dependent on claim 1, recites only additional elements and is rejected due to its dependence on rejected claim 1. However, if the language from claim 4 were to be incorporated into claim 1 the additional elements would be analyzed according to the two-step process.
Claim 5, dependent on claim 1: considering Step 2A, Prong One, the limitations in claim 5 including: “compare common elements of the first vector embeddings array and the second vector embeddings array;” and “identify common elements that have changed from the first vector embeddings array to the second vector embeddings array based on respective associated temporal data;” covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components.
MPEP 2106.04.(a)(2)(III) details “the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” The claimed “compar[ing]” and “identify[ing]” are observations, evaluations, and judgments. For example, a human is capable of comparing elements; this would be observation, evaluation, and judgment. A human is also capable of identifying temporal data as this would also be an observation, evaluation, and judgment.
Considering Step 2A, Prong Two, and Step 2B, claim 5 contains additional elements detailing receiving data and retraining a model. The receiving is insignificant extra-solution activity; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, the retraining is insignificant extra-solution activity, a tangential addition to the claim; see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 6, dependent on claim 1, recites only additional elements and is rejected due to its dependence on rejected claim 1. However, if the language from claim 6 were to be incorporated into claim 1 the additional elements would be analyzed according to the two-step process.
Claim 7, dependent on claim 1, recites only additional elements and is rejected due to its dependents on rejected claim 1. However, if the language from claim 7 were to be incorporated into claim 1 the additional elements would be analyzed according to the two-step process.
Independent claim 8: considering Step 2A, Prong One, the limitations in claim 8 including: “executing … a model on the received data set to generate a vector embeddings array representative of the received data;” and “identifying … temporal data associated with the vector embeddings array;” covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components.
MPEP 2106.04.(a)(2)(III) details “the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” The claimed “executing” and “identifying” are observations, evaluations, and judgments. For example, a human is capable of writing generating a vector embeddings array representative of received data; this would be observation, evaluation, and judgment. A human is also capable of identifying temporal data as this would also be an observation, evaluation, and judgment.
Considering Step 2A, Prong Two, and Step 2B, claim 8 contains additional elements “receiving, with a processor, a data set from a data source;” “a processor”, and “storing, with the processor, the vector embeddings array with the associated data in a storage device.” But the judicial exception in claim 8 is not integrated into a practical application. The processor,” “storage device,” and storing the vector embeddings array in a storage device are generic components that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more under Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d). Additionally, the “receiving” is insignificant extra-solution activity; see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 9, dependent on claim 8, recites only additional elements and is rejected due to its dependence on rejected claim 8. However, if the language from claim 9 were to be incorporated into claim 8 the additional elements would be analyzed according to the two-step process.
Claim 10, dependent on claim 8, recites only additional elements and is rejected due to its dependence on rejected claim 8. However, if the language from claim 10 were to be incorporated into claim 8 the additional elements would be analyzed according to the two-step process.
Claim 11, dependent on claim 8, recites only additional elements and is rejected due to its dependence on rejected claim 8. However, if the language from claim 111 were to be incorporated into claim 8 the additional elements would be analyzed according to the two-step process.
Claim 12, dependent on claim 8: considering Step 2A, Prong One, the limitations in claim 12 including: “compare common elements of the first vector embeddings array and the second vector embeddings array;” and “identify common elements that have changed from the first vector embeddings array to the second vector embeddings array based on respective associated temporal data;” covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components.
MPEP 2106.04.(a)(2)(III) details “the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” The claimed “compar[ing]” and “identify[ing]” are observations, evaluations, and judgments. For example, a human is capable of comparing elements; this would be observation, evaluation, and judgment. A human is also capable of identifying temporal data as this would also be an observation, evaluation, and judgment.
Considering Step 2A, Prong Two, and Step 2B, claim 12 contains additional elements detailing receiving data and retraining a model. The receiving is insignificant extra-solution activity; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, the retraining is insignificant extra-solution activity, a tangential addition to the claim; see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 13, dependent on claim 8, recites only additional elements and is rejected due to its dependence on rejected claim 8. However, if the language from claim 13 were to be incorporated into claim 8 the additional elements would be analyzed according to the two-step process.
Claim 14, dependent on claim 8, recites only additional elements and is rejected due to its dependence on rejected claim 8. However, if the language from claim 14 were to be incorporated into claim 8 the additional elements would be analyzed according to the two-step process.
Independent claim 15: considering Step 2A, Prong One, the limitations in claim 15 including: “instructions to execute a model on the received data set to generate a vector embeddings array representative of the received data;” and “instructions to identify temporal data associated with the vector embeddings array;” covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components.
MPEP 2106.04.(a)(2)(III) details “the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” The claimed “execut[ing]” and “identify[ing]” are observations, evaluations, and judgments. For example, a human is capable of writing generating a vector embeddings array representative of received data; this would be observation, evaluation, and judgment. A human is also capable of identifying temporal data as this would also be an observation, evaluation, and judgment.
Considering Step 2A, Prong Two, and Step 2B, claim 15 contains additional elements “a computer-readable medium,” “instructions to receive a data set from a data source;” “ instructions to execute a model on the received data set to generate a vector embeddings array representative of the received data;” and “instructions to store the vector embeddings array with the associated temporal data in a storage device.” But the judicial exception in claim 8 is not integrated into a practical application. The “computer-readable medium,” “storage device,” and storing the vector embeddings array in a storage device are generic components that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more under Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d). Additionally, the “receiving” is insignificant extra-solution activity; see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 16, dependent on claim 15, recites only additional elements and is rejected due to its dependence on rejected claim 15. However, if the language from claim 16 were to be incorporated into claim 15 the additional elements would be analyzed according to the two-step process.
Claim 17, dependent on claim 15, recites only additional elements and is rejected due to its dependence on rejected claim 15. However, if the language from claim 17 were to be incorporated into claim 15 the additional elements would be analyzed according to the two-step process.
Claim 18, dependent on claim 15, recites only additional elements and is rejected due to its dependence on rejected claim 15. However, if the language from claim 18 were to be incorporated into claim 15 the additional elements would be analyzed according to the two-step process.
Claim 19, dependent on claim 15: considering Step 2A, Prong One, the limitations in claim 19 including: “compare common elements of the first vector embeddings array and the second vector embeddings array;” and “identify common elements that have changed from the first vector embeddings array to the second vector embeddings array based on respective associated temporal data;” covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components.
MPEP 2106.04.(a)(2)(III) details “the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” The claimed “compar[ing]” and “identify[ing]” are observations, evaluations, and judgments. For example, a human is capable of comparing elements; this would be observation, evaluation, and judgment. A human is also capable of identifying temporal data as this would also be an observation, evaluation, and judgment.
Considering Step 2A, Prong Two, and Step 2B, claim 19 contains additional elements detailing receiving data and retraining a model. The receiving is insignificant extra-solution activity; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, the retraining is insignificant extra-solution activity, a tangential addition to the claim; see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 20, dependent on claim 15, recites only additional elements and is rejected due to its dependence on rejected claim 15. However, if the language from claim 20 were to be incorporated into claim 15 the additional elements would be analyzed according to the two-step process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2,8, 9, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kazemi et al., “Time2Vec: Learning a Vector Representation of Time” (“Kazimi”).
With respect to independent claim 1, Kazemi teaches:
A system comprising:
a storage device (Kazemi teaches a computer-based implementation in appendix A. Such an implementation would include a storage device.); and
a plurality of processing node in communication with the storage device, wherein at least one processing node of the plurality of processing nodes (Kazemi teaches a computer-based implementation in appendix A. Such an implementation would include a processor, and because only “at least one processing node” is required to perform the subsequent steps, a single processor is sufficient to teach the claimed features.) is configured to:
receive a data set from a data source (Section 5 of Kazemi covers experiments and results, which includes receiving input to process.);
execute a model on the received data set to generate a vector embeddings array representative of the received data (Kazemi teaches generating vector embeddings in section 2, paragraph 2.);
identify temporal data associated with the vector embeddings array (Kazemi teaches capturing temporal data in section 4, including periodic and non-periodic patterns.); and
store the vector embeddings array with the associated temporal data in the storage device (Kazemi teaches a computer-based implementation in appendix A. Such an implementation would include a storage device.).
With respect to dependent claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Further Kazemi teaches:
wherein the associated temporal data comprises a start time and end time for each vector embeddings array (Kazemi teaches a start time and an absolute time in section 3.).
With respect to independent claim 8, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
With respect to dependent claim 9, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
With respect to independent claim 15, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
With respect to dependent claim 16, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
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) 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazemi et al., in view of Malloy et al., U.S. Patent 5,978,796 (“Malloy”).
With respect to dependent claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Further, Kazemi teaches:
wherein the at least one processing node (Kazemi teaches a computer-based implementation in appendix A. Such an implementation would include a processor.) is configured to:
Kazemi does not explicitly teach:
store each element of the vector embeddings array as a single column of a common row; and store the associated temporal data in the same common row.
However, Malloy teaches these features:
store each element of the vector embeddings array as a single column of a common row (Malloy teaches a multi-dimensional array that is arranged so that every data idem is located and accessed based on the intersection of the members which define that item; see 6:23-37. Malloy further teaches that time can be a dimension in 6:49-63. Storing elements in a column is a design choice and given no patentable weight.); and
store the associated temporal data in the same common row (Malloy further teaches that time can be a dimension in 6:49-63. Storing elements in a row is a design choice and given no patentable weight.).
Kazemi and Malloy are analogous art directed towards vector embedding. Kazemi teaches incorporated time into a vector representation and Malloy teaches a multi-dimensional relational database.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art of vector representation to implement Malloy’s multi-dimensional database into Kazemi’s disclosed system before the filing date of the claimed invention. It would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to deliver consistent fast responses, as detailed in Malloy, 4:19-24.
With respect to dependent claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Further Malloy teaches:
wherein the at least one processing node is configured to:
store the vector embeddings array as a single column (Malloy teaches a multi-dimensional array that is arranged so that every data idem is located and accessed based on the intersection of the members which define that item; see 6:23-37. Malloy further teaches that time can be a dimension in 6:49-63. Storing elements in a column is a design choice and given no patentable weight.); and
store the associated temporal data in a common row of the vector embeddings array (Malloy further teaches that time can be a dimension in 6:49-63. Storing elements in a row is a design choice and given no patentable weight.).
See the rejection of claim 3 for the motivation to combine references.
With respect to dependent claim 10, see the rejection of claim 3 above.
With respect to dependent claim 11, see the rejection of claim 4 above.
With respect to dependent claim 17, see the rejection of claim 3 above.
With respect to dependent claim 18, see the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazemi, in view of Staykovski et al., “Dense vs. Sparse Representations for News Stream Clustering” (“Staykovski”).
With respect to dependent claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Further, Kazemi does not teach:
wherein the vector embeddings array is a sparse vector embeddings array.
However, Staykovski teaches this limitation:
Staykovski teaches generating a sparse vector in section 3.1.
Kazemi and Staykovski are analogous art directed towards vector embedding. Kazemi teaches incorporated time into a vector representation and Staykovski teaches generating sparse and dense vectors.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art of vector representation to implement Staykovski’s sparse and dense representation into Kazemi’s disclosed system before the filing date of the claimed invention. It would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to make data easier to analyze and consume; see section 1.
With respect to dependent claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Further, Kazemi does not teach:
wherein the vector embeddings array is a dense vector embeddings array.
However, Staykovski teaches this limitation:
Staykovski teaches generating a dense vector in section 3.1.
See the rejection of claim 6 for the motivation to combine references.
With respect to dependent claim 13, see the rejection of claim 6 above
With respect to dependent claim 14, see the rejection of claim 7 above.
With respect to dependent claim 20, see the rejections of claims 6 and 7 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 12, and 19 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; any 101 and 112 rejections will have to be addressed as well.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL T PELLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-7156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 EST.
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, Li Zhen can be reached on 571-272-3768. 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.
/DANIEL T PELLETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2121
