DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-7, 9-20 are currently pending. In the Amendment filed 13 January 2026, claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-14 and 16-20 are amended and claim 8 is canceled.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 January 2026 has been entered.
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 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Determining whether claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 involves a two-step analysis. Step 1 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to the statutory categories of invention. Step 2 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2 is divided into two prongs, with the first prong having a part 1 and part 2. See MPEP 2106.
Claim 1 recites sorting, by a computing device, a plurality of documents in an increasing order of frequency updates comprising database operations including at least one of an update database operation or a delete database operation; creating, by the computing device, a first set of multiple recursive partitions of the plurality of documents; computing, by the computing device, a cost of the first set of multiple recursive partitions; choosing, by the computing device, a partition with a smallest cost from computed costs of the multiple recursive partitions; merging, by the computing device, the plurality of documents based on the partition with the smallest cost; determining, by the computing system, that there is a change in an update frequency of the frequency updates if the first set of multiple recursive partitions; creating, by the computing device, a second set of multiple recursive partitions based on the change in the update frequency; and merging, by the computing device, the plurality of documents based on the second set of multiple recursive partitions.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of sorting a plurality of documents in an increasing order of frequency updates; creating a first set of multiple recursive partitions of the plurality of documents; computing a cost of the first set of multiple recursive partitions; choosing a partition with a smallest cost from computed costs of the multiple recursive partitions; and merging the plurality of documents based on the partition with the smallest cost; determining, by the computing system, that there is a change in an update frequency of the frequency updates if the first set of multiple recursive partitions; creating, by the computing device, a second set of multiple recursive partitions based on the change in the update frequency; and merging, by the computing device, the plurality of documents based on the second set of multiple recursive partitions, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind except for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a person can sort a plurality of documents in an increasing order of frequency updates. The person can the create a plurality of options for partitioning the documents. The person can then calculate a cost for each option and then choose the cheapest option. The person can then create a table or index depicting the documents. The person can then determine a change in an update frequency, create new partitions based on the change and then create a table or index depicting the documents. If limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind except for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of a computing device. The computing device is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of sorting, creating, computing, choosing and merging) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional element of “database operations including at least one of an update database operation or a delete database operation.” The additional element is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional element of a computing device. The computing device is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of sorting, creating, computing, choosing and merging) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional element of “database operations including at least one of an update database operation or a delete database operation.” The additional element is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites receive a plurality of documents for indexing into a vector database system; sort the plurality of documents in an increasing order of frequency updates comprising database operations including at least one of an update database operation or a delete database operation; create a first set of multiple recursive partitions of the plurality of documents; compute a cost of the first set of multiple recursive partitions; choose a partition with a smallest cost from computed costs of the multiple recursive partitions; merge the plurality of documents based on the partition with the smallest cost; create a final vector database which comprises the merged plurality of documents; determine that there is a change in an update frequency of the frequency updates if the first set of multiple recursive partitions; create a second set of multiple recursive partitions based on the change in the update frequency; and merge the plurality of documents based on the second set of multiple recursive partitions.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of sort the plurality of documents in an increasing order of frequency updates; create a first set of multiple recursive partitions of the plurality of sorted documents; compute a cost of the first set of multiple recursive partitions; choose a partition with a smallest cost from computed costs of the multiple recursive partitions; merge the plurality of documents based on the partition with the smallest cost; determine that there is a change in an update frequency of the frequency updates if the first set of multiple recursive partitions; create a second set of multiple recursive partitions based on the change in the update frequency; and merge the plurality of documents based on the second set of multiple recursive partitions, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind except for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, these a person can sort a plurality of documents in an increasing order of frequency updates. The person can the create a plurality of options for partitioning the documents. The person can then calculate a cost for each option and then choose the cheapest option. The person can then create vector database depicting the documents. The person can then determine a change in an update frequency, create new partitions based on the change and then create a table or index depicting the documents. If limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind except for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of storage media and program instructions. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of receiving, sorting, creating, computing, choosing and merging) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional element of “database operations including at least one of an update database operation or a delete database operation.” The additional element is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim also recites the additional elements of receive a plurality of documents for indexing into a vector database system and create a final vector database which comprises the merged plurality of documents. These additional elements are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the elements are receiving a datastore and creating a final vector database which is storing data. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of storage media and program instructions. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of receiving, sorting, creating, computing, choosing and merging) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional element of “database operations including at least one of an update database operation or a delete database operation.” The additional element is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim also recites the additional elements of receive a plurality of documents for indexing into a vector database system and create a final vector database which comprises the merged plurality of documents. These additional elements are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the elements are receiving a datastore and creating a final vector database which is storing data. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA of receiving data and storing data, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 recites receive a plurality of documents for indexing into a vector database system; sort the plurality of documents in an increasing order of frequency updates comprising database operations including at least one of an update database operation or a delete database operation; create a first set of multiple recursive partitions of the plurality of documents based on a Monte Carlo algorithm; compute a cost of the first set of multiple recursive partitions; choose a partition with a smallest cost from computed costs of the first set of multiple recursive partitions; merge the plurality of documents based on the partition with the smallest cost; create a final vector database which comprises the merged plurality of documents; determine that there is a change in an update frequency of the frequency updates if the first set of multiple recursive partitions; create a second set of multiple recursive partitions based on the change in the update frequency; and merge the plurality of documents based on the second set of multiple recursive partitions.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of sort the plurality of documents in an increasing order of frequency updates; create multiple recursive partitions of the plurality of sorted documents; compute a cost of the multiple recursive partitions; choose a partition with a smallest cost from computed costs of the multiple recursive partitions; merge the plurality of documents based on the partition with the smallest cost; determining, by the computing system, that there is a change in an update frequency of the frequency updates if the first set of multiple recursive partitions; create a second set of multiple recursive partitions based on the change in the update frequency; and merge the plurality of documents based on the second set of multiple recursive partitions, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind except for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, these a person can sort a plurality of documents in an increasing order of frequency updates. The person can the create a plurality of options for partitioning the documents. The person can then calculate a cost for each option and then choose the cheapest option. The person can then create vector database depicting the documents. The person can then determine a change in an update frequency, create new partitions based on the change and then create a table or index depicting the documents. If limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind except for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitation of “create multiple recursive partitions of the plurality of sorted documents based on a Monte Carlo algorithm” falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of a processor, storage media and program instructions. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of receiving, sorting, creating, computing, choosing and merging) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional element of “database operations including at least one of an update database operation or a delete database operation.” The additional element is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim also recites the additional elements of receive a plurality of documents for indexing into a vector database system and create a final vector database which comprises the merged plurality of documents. These additional elements are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the elements are receiving a datastore and creating a final vector database which is storing data. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of a processor, storage media and program instructions. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of receiving, sorting, creating, computing, choosing and merging) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional element of “database operations including at least one of an update database operation or a delete database operation.” The additional element is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim also recites the additional elements of receive a plurality of documents for indexing into a vector database system and create a final vector database which comprises the merged plurality of documents. These additional elements are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the elements are receiving a datastore and creating a final vector database which is storing data. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA of receiving data and storing data, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 5-7 and 15-19 are directed to the abstract idea of the independent claims. The additional limitations are directed to the abstract idea of “Mental Processes.” Therefore, each claim fails to provide any additional elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 13 and 14 are directed to the abstract idea of the independent claims. The additional limitations are directed to the abstract idea of “Mathematical Concepts.” Therefore, each claim fails to provide any additional elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 4, 9, 10, 11 are directed to the abstract idea of the independent claims. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of re-sorting, creating, computing and choosing) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and they do not provide an inventive concept. The claim are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the English translation of CN11770866A to Beijing (hereafter Beijing) in view of US PGPub 2008/0201341 to Okamoto et al in view of 2023/0418787 to Zhao et al (hereafter Zhao) in view of US PGPub 2015/0134626 to Theimer et al (hereafter Theimer).
Referring to claim 1, Beijing discloses a method, comprising:
creating, by the computing device, a first set of multiple recursive partitions of the plurality of documents (see pages 2-5 – generating solutions);
computing, by the computing device, a cost of the first set of multiple recursive partitions (see pages 2-5 – s3, calculating cost according to a cost function);
choosing, by the computing device, a partition with a smallest cost from computed costs of the first set of multiple recursive partitions (see pages 2-5 – s4); and
merging, by the computing device, the plurality of documents based on the partition with the smallest cost (s4, outputting a partitioning result, partitioning the file to be sent according to the partitioning result, and finishing the balanced partitioning of the data file.).
While Beijing teaches creating multiple partitions of the plurality of documents, Beijing fails to explicitly teach the further limitations of sorting, by a computing device, a plurality of documents in an increasing order of frequency updates and creating, by the computing device, multiple recursive partitions of the plurality of sorted documents.
Okamoto teaches content management including the further limitation of
sorting, by a computing device, a plurality of documents in an increasing order of frequency updates (see [0150] – The cache control program sorts all the contents stored in the content list in an increasing order of the access frequency.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sort the documents of Beijing in increasing order as taught by Okamoto. One would have been motivated to do so in order to have an ordered lists (Beijing: see page 2; Okamoto: see [0150]).
While the combination of Beijing and Okamoto (hereafter Beijing/Okamoto) teaches frequency updates, Beijing/Okamoto fails to explicitly teach the further limitation of the frequency updates comprising database operations including at least one of an update database operation or a delete database operation. Zhao teaches tracking a file’s access history, including the further limitation of frequency updates comprising database operations including at least one of an update database operation [edit to a file] or a delete database operation (File access includes attributes to track a file’s access history which includes, but is not limited to, previous dates or times a file was open, edited or otherwise viewed or interacted with; and a frequency or a rate of access with the file.).
While Okamoto teaches tracking access frequency, Okamato fails to explicitly depict specific types of access. Zhao describes tracking access frequency and the different types of access. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the access frequency of Beijing/Okamoto include tracking edits to a file as taught by Zhao. One would have been motivated to do so since editing a file is merely a specific type of access that is commonly tracked (Zhao: see [0023]).
While the combination of Beijing/Okamoto and Zhao (hereafter Beijing/Okamoto/Zhao) discusses moving files between partitions to maintain balance (Beijing: see page 2), Beijing/Okamoto/Zhao fails to explicitly teach the further limitations of determining, by the computing device, that there is a change in an update frequency of the frequency updates of the first set of multiple recursive partitions; creating, by the computing device, a second set of multiple recursive partitions based on the change in the update frequency; and merging, by the computing device, the plurality of documents based on the second set of multiple recursive partitions. Theimer teaches repartitioning data including the further limitations of
determining, by the computing device, that there is a change in an update frequency of the frequency updates of the first set of multiple recursive partitions (see [0138] – A detection of a change to a usage pattern of the data stream (e.g., the rate at which data records are being produced or consumed) may also lead to repartitioning in some cases, and may also lead to the use of a different storage technique or a different set of storage devices that is more appropriate for the changed usage pattern. For example. A decision to repartition may be based on the determination that, for the rate of reads and writes expected for a given partition or an entire stream.);
creating, by the computing device, a second set of multiple recursive partitions based on the change in the update frequency (see [0138] – A modified partition mapping, different from the mapping in use at the time of repartitioning decision, may be generated for the stream.); and
merging, by the computing device, the plurality of documents based on the second set of multiple recursive partitions (see [0138] – The selected mapping may then be used to identify the appropriate storage node from which the request data is to be obtained.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repartition the documents of Beijing/Okamoto/Zhao in the manner taught by Theimer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to maintain balanced partitions based on the detection of triggers (Beijing: see page 2; Theimer: see [0137]).
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Beijing/Okamoto/Zhao and Theimer (hereafter Beijing/Okamoto/Zhao/Theimer) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the creating the first set of multiple recursive partitions of the documents occurs based on simulated annealing (Beijing: see page 4 – The method solves the problem of evenly distributing n files with different sizes into p partitions by using a simulated algorithm).
Referring to claim 5, Beijing/Okamoto/Zhao/Theimer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the increasing the order of frequency updates comprises a first document comprising a first historical frequency update in a first position, a second document comprising a second historical frequency update which has a greater frequency than the first historical frequency update in a second position, a third document comprising a third historical frequency update which has the greater frequency than the second historical update in a third position, and a fourth document comprising a fourth historical frequency update which has the greater frequency than the third historical update in a fourth position (Okamoto: see [0150] – The cache control program sorts all the contents stored in the content list in an increasing order of the access frequency. This claim is just the details of sorting documents in increasing order which is inherent when documents are sorted in increasing order.).
Referring to claim 6, Beijing/Okamoto/Zhao/Theimer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the cost of the first set of multiple recursive partitions represents a cost in an order of the total number of operations to merge the plurality of documents, and the merging of the plurality of documents minimizes a rate for merging the plurality of documents within a vector database system (Beijing: see pages 2-5 – s3, calculating cost according to a cost function).
Referring to claim 7, Beijing/Okamoto/Zhao/Theimer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first set of multiple recursive partitions comprise a sequence of documents with a database that is maintained for merging with remaining documents of the plurality of documents (Beijing: see pages 2-5).
Referring to claim 9, Beijing/Okamoto/Zhao/Theimer method of claim 8, further comprising: re-sorting, by the computing device, the plurality of documents in the increasing order of frequency updates based on the change in a frequency of the frequency updates (Beijing: see page 2 – checking balancing and moving files between partitions as needed; Theimer: see [0138]; [0137]; Okamoto: see [0150]).
Referring to claim 10, Beijing/Okamoto/Zhao/Theimer teaches method of claim 9, further comprising computing, by the computing device, a cost of the second set of multiple recursive partitions (Beijing: see pages 2-3).
Referring to claim 11, Beijing/Okamoto/Zhao/Theimer teaches method of claim 10, further comprising: choosing, by the computing device, another partition with a smallest cost from computed costs of the second set of multiple recursive partitions (Beijing: see pages 2-5).
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the English translation of CN11770866A to Beijing (hereafter Beijing) in view of US PGPub 2008/0201341 to Okamoto et al (hereafter Okamoto) in view of 2023/0418787 to Zhao et al (hereafter Zhao) in view of US PGPub 2015/0134626 to Theimer et al (hereafter Theimer) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of US Patent No 12,223,456 to Manohar et al (hereafter Manohar).
Referring to claim 2, while the combination of Beijing/Okamoto/Zhao/Theimer teaches storing files and using a simulated annealing algorithm, Beijing/Okamoto/Zhao/Theimer fails to explicitly teach the further limitation wherein the creating the first set of multiple recursive partitions of the plurality of documents occurs based on a Monte Carlo algorithm. Manohar teaches creating the partitions based on a Monte Carlo algorithm (Manohar: see column 38, lines 13-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the partitions of Beijing/Okamoto/Zhao/Theimer using a Monte Carlo algorithm in the manner taught by Manohar. One would have been motivated to do so since this is merely a specific type of algorithm and would be used in place of the simulated annealing algorithm (Manohar: see column 38, lines 13-41).
Referring to claim 4, while Beijing/Okamoto/Zhao/Theimer teaches storing files, Beijing/Okamoto/Zhao/Theimer fails to explicitly teach the further limitations of receiving, by the computing device, the plurality of documents for indexing into a vector database system. Manohar teaches receiving, by the computing device, the plurality of documents for indexing into a vector database system (see column 28, lines 6-21 and column 29, lines 11-23); and performing, by the computing device, generative artificial intelligence (AI) searching by utilizing the merged plurality of documents based on partition with the smallest cost (see column 29, line 37 – column 30, line 38 and column 33, line 47 – column 34, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store the documents of Beijing/Okamoto/Zhao/Theimer in a vector database in the manner taught by Manohar and then to search the database as taught by Manohar. One would have been motivated to do so since this is merely a specific kind of database (Manohar: see column 28, lines 6-21).
Claim(s) 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the English translation of CN11770866A to Beijing (hereafter Beijing) in view of US PGPub 2008/0201341 to Okamoto et al (hereafter Okamoto) in view of US Patent No 12,223,456 to Manohar et al (hereafter Manohar) in view of US PGPub 2023/0418787 to Zhao et al (hereafter Zhao) in view of US PGPub 2015/0134626 to Theimer et al (hereafter Theimer).
Referring to claim 12, Beijing discloses a computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media having program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable to:
receive a plurality of documents for indexing (see page 4 – n files of different sizes to be equally distributed to p partitions);
create a first set of multiple recursive partitions of the plurality of documents (see pages 2-5 – generating solutions);
compute a cost of the first set of multiple recursive partitions (see pages 2-5 – s3, calculating cost according to a cost function);
choose a partition with a smallest cost from computed costs of the first set of multiple recursive partitions (see pages 2-5 – s4);
merge the plurality of documents based on the partition with the smallest cost (s4, outputting a partitioning result, partitioning the file to be sent according to the partitioning result, and finishing the balanced partitioning of the data file.);
create a final database which comprises the merged plurality of documents (s4, outputting a partitioning result, partitioning the file to be sent according to the partitioning result, and finishing the balanced partitioning of the data file.).
While Beijing teaches creating multiple partitions of the plurality of documents, Beijing fails to explicitly teach the further limitations of sorting, by a computing device, a plurality of documents in an increasing order of frequency updates and creating, by the computing device, multiple recursive partitions of the plurality of sorted documents.
Okamoto teaches content management including the further limitation of
sorting, by a computing device, a plurality of documents in an increasing order of frequency updates (see [0150] – The cache control program sorts all the contents stored in the content list in an increasing order of the access frequency.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sort the documents of Beijing in increasing order as taught by Okamoto. One would have been motivated to do so in order to have an ordered lists (Beijing: see page 2; Okamoto: see [0150]).
While the combination of Beijing and Okamoto (hereafter Beijing/Okamoto) teaches storing files, Beijing/Okamoto fails to explicitly teach the further limitations of receive a plurality of documents for indexing into a vector database system and create a final vector database which comprises the merged plurality of documents. Manohar teaches receive a plurality of documents for indexing into a vector database system (see column 28, lines 6-21 and column 29, lines 11-23) and create a final vector database which comprises the merged plurality of documents (see column 28, lines 6-21 and column 29, lines 11-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store the documents of Beijing/Okamoto in a vector database in the manner taught by Manohar. One would have been motivated to do so since this is merely a specific kind of database (Manohar: see column 28, lines 6-21).
While the combination of Beijing/Okamoto and Manohar (hereafter Beijing/Okamoto/Manohar) teaches frequency updates, Beijing/Okamoto/Manohar fails to explicitly teach the further limitation of the frequency updates comprising database operations including at least one of an update database operation or a delete database operation. Zhao teaches tracking a file’s access history, including the further limitation of frequency updates comprising database operations including at least one of an update database operation [edit to a file] or a delete database operation (File access includes attributes to track a file’s access history which includes, but is not limited to, previous dates or times a file was open, edited or otherwise viewed or interacted with; and a frequency or a rate of access with the file.).
While Okamoto teaches tracking access frequency, Okamato fails to explicitly depict specific types of access. Zhao describes tracking access frequency and the different types of access. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the access frequency of Beijing/Okamoto/Manohar include tracking edits to a file. One would have been motivated to do so since editing a file is merely a specific type of access that is commonly tracked (Zhao: see [0023]).
While the combination of Beijing/Okamoto and Zhao (hereafter Beijing/Okamoto/Zhao) discusses moving files between partitions to maintain balance (Beijing: see page 2), Beijing/Okamoto/Zhao fails to explicitly teach the further limitations of determining, by the computing device, that there is a change in an update frequency of the frequency updates of the first set of multiple recursive partitions; creating, by the computing device, a second set of multiple recursive partitions based on the change in the update frequency; and merging, by the computing device, the plurality of documents based on the second set of multiple recursive partitions. Theimer teaches repartitioning data including the further limitations of
determining, by the computing device, that there is a change in an update frequency of the frequency updates of the first set of multiple recursive partitions (see [0138] – A detection of a change to a usage pattern of the data stream (e.g., the rate at which data records are being produced or consumed) may also lead to repartitioning in some cases, and may also lead to the use of a different storage technique or a different set of storage devices that is more appropriate for the changed usage pattern. For example. A decision to repartition may be based on the determination that, for the rate of reads and writes expected for a given partition or an entire stream.);
creating, by the computing device, a second set of multiple recursive partitions based on the change in the update frequency (see [0138] – A modified partition mapping, different from the mapping in use at the time of repartitioning decision, may be generated for the stream.); and
merging, by the computing device, the plurality of documents based on the second set of multiple recursive partitions (see [0138] – The selected mapping may then be used to identify the appropriate storage node from which the request data is to be obtained.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repartition the documents of Beijing/Okamoto/Zhao in the manner taught by Theimer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to maintain balanced partitions based on the detection of triggers (Beijing: see page 2; Theimer: see [0137]).
Referring to claim 13, the combination of Beijing/Okamoto/Manohar/Zhao and Theimer (hereafter Beijing/Okamoto/Manohar/Zhao/Theimer) teaches the computer program product of claim 12, wherein the creating the multiple recursive partitions of the sorted documents occurs based on a Monte Carlo algorithm (Manohar: see column 38, lines 13-41).
Referring to claim 14, Beijing/Okamoto/Manohar/Zhao/Theimer teaches the computer program product of claim 12, wherein the creating the multiple recursive partitions of the sorted documents occurs based on simulated annealing (Beijing: see page 4 – The method solves the problem of evenly distributing n files with different sizes into p partitions by using a simulated algorithm).
Referring to claim 15, Beijing/Okamoto/Manohar/Zhao/Theimer teaches the computer program product of claim 12, wherein the increasing the order of frequency updates comprises a first document comprising a first historical frequency update in a first position, a second document comprising a second historical frequency update which has a greater frequency than the first historical frequency update in a second position, a third document comprising a third historical frequency update which has the greater frequency than the second historical update in a third position, and a fourth document comprising a fourth historical frequency update which has the greater frequency than the third historical update in a fourth position (Okamoto: see [0150] – The cache control program sorts all the contents stored in the content list in an increasing order of the access frequency. This claim is just the details of sorting documents in increasing order which is inherent when documents are sorted in increasing order.).
Referring to claim 16, Beijing/Okamoto/Manohar/Zhao/Theimer teaches the computer program product of claim 12, wherein the cost of the multiple recursive partitions represents a cost in an order of the total number of operations to merge the plurality of documents (Beijing: see pages 2-5 – s3, calculating cost according to a cost function).
Referring to claim 17, Beijing/Okamoto/Manohar/Zhao/Theimer teaches the computer program product of claim 12, wherein the multiple recursive partitions comprise a sequence of documents with a database that is maintained for merging with remaining documents of the plurality of documents (Beijing: see pages 2-5).
Referring to claim 18, Beijing/Okamoto/Manohar/Zhao/Theimer teaches the computer program product of claim 12, further comprising: perform generative artificial intelligence (AI) searching by utilizing the merged plurality of documents based on partition with the smallest cost (Manohar: see column 29, line 37 – column 30, line 38 and column 33, line 47 – column 34, line 2); determine a change in a frequency of the frequency updates of the plurality of documents (Beijing: see page 2 – checking balancing and moving files between partitions as needed.); re-sort the plurality of documents in the increasing order of frequency updates based on the change in the frequency of the frequency updates of the plurality of documents (Beijing: see page 2 – checking balancing and moving files between partitions as needed; Peckham: see [0007]-[0011]); create another set of multiple recursive partitions of the re-sorted documents (Beijing: see page 2); and compute a cost of the another set of multiple recursive partitions (Beijing: see pages 2-3).
Referring to claim 19, Beijing/Okamoto/Manohar/Zhao/Theimer teaches the computer program product of claim 18, further comprising: choose another partition with a smallest cost from computed costs of the another set of multiple recursive partitions (Beijing: see pages 2-5); and merge the plurality of documents based on the another partition with the smallest cost, wherein the merging of the plurality of documents minimizes a rate for merging the plurality of documents within the vector database system (Beijing: see pages 2-5).
Referring to claim 20, Beijing discloses a system comprising: a processor, a computer readable memory, one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media (Beijing: see pages 2-5), the program instructions executable to:
receive a plurality of documents for indexing (see page 4 – n files of different sizes to be equally distributed to p partitions);
create a first set of multiple recursive partitions of the plurality of documents (see pages 2-5 – generating solutions);
compute a cost of the first set of multiple recursive partitions (see pages 2-5 – s3, calculating cost according to a cost function);
choose a partition with a smallest cost from computed costs of the first set of multiple recursive partitions (see pages 2-5 – s4);
merge the plurality of documents based on the partition with the smallest cost (s4, outputting a partitioning result, partitioning the file to be sent according to the partitioning result, and finishing the balanced partitioning of the data file.);
create a final database which comprises the merged plurality of documents (s4, outputting a partitioning result, partitioning the file to be sent according to the partitioning result, and finishing the balanced partitioning of the data file.).
While Beijing teaches creating multiple partitions of the plurality of documents, Beijing fails to explicitly teach the further limitations of sorting, by a computing device, a plurality of documents in an increasing order of frequency updates and creating, by the computing device, multiple recursive partitions of the plurality of sorted documents.
Okamoto teaches content management including the further limitation of
sorting, by a computing device, a plurality of documents in an increasing order of frequency updates (see [0150] – The cache control program sorts all the contents stored in the content list in an increasing order of the access frequency.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sort the documents of Beijing in increasing order as taught by Okamoto. One would have been motivated to do so in order to have an ordered lists (Beijing: see page 2; Okamoto: see [0150]).
While the combination of Beijing/Peckham and Okamoto (hereafter Beijing/Peckham/Okamoto) teaches storing files, Beijing/Peckham/Okamoto fails to explicitly teach the further limitations of receive a plurality of documents for indexing into a vector database system, create partitions based on the Monte Carlo algorithm and create a final vector database which comprises the merged plurality of documents. Manohar teaches receive a plurality of documents for indexing into a vector database system (see column 28, lines 6-21 and column 29, lines 11-23); creating the partitions based on a Monte Carlo algorithm (Manohar: see column 38, lines 13-41) and create a final vector database which comprises the merged plurality of documents (see column 28, lines 6-21 and column 29, lines 11-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store the documents of Beijing/Peckham/Okamoto in a vector database in the manner taught by Manohar and to use a Monte Carlo algorithm as taught by Manohar instead of simulated annealing. One would have been motivated to do so since this is merely a specific kind of database (Manohar: see column 28, lines 6-21) and a specific type of algorithm (Manohar: see column 38, lines 13-41).
While the combination of Beijing/Peckham/Okamoto and Manohar (hereafter Beijing/Peckham/Okamoto/Manohar) teaches frequency updates, Beijing/Peckham/Okamoto/Manohar fails to explicitly teach the further limitation of the frequency updates comprising database operations including at least one of an update database operation or a delete database operation. Zhao teaches tracking a file’s access history, including the further limitation of frequency updates comprising database operations including at least one of an update database operation [edit to a file] or a delete database operation (File access includes attributes to track a file’s access history which includes, but is not limited to, previous dates or times a file was open, edited or otherwise viewed or interacted with; and a frequency or a rate of access with the file.).
While Okamoto teaches tracking access frequency, Okamato fails to explicitly depict specific types of access. Zhao describes tracking access frequency and the different types of access. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the access frequency of Beijing/Peckham/Okamoto/Manohar include tracking edits to a file. One would have been motivated to do so since editing a file is merely a specific type of access that is commonly tracked (Zhao: see [0023]).
While the combination of Beijing/Okamoto and Zhao (hereafter Beijing/Okamoto/Zhao) discusses moving files between partitions to maintain balance (Beijing: see page 2), Beijing/Okamoto/Zhao fails to explicitly teach the further limitations of determining, by the computing device, that there is a change in an update frequency of the frequency updates of the first set of multiple recursive partitions; creating, by the computing device, a second set of multiple recursive partitions based on the change in the update frequency; and merging, by the computing device, the plurality of documents based on the second set of multiple recursive partitions. Theimer teaches repartitioning data including the further limitations of
determining, by the computing device, that there is a change in an update frequency of the frequency updates of the first set of multiple recursive partitions (see [0138] – A detection of a change to a usage pattern of the data stream (e.g., the rate at which data records are being produced or consumed) may also lead to repartitioning in some cases, and may also lead to the use of a different storage technique or a different set of storage devices that is more appropriate for the changed usage pattern. For example. A decision to repartition may be based on the determination that, for the rate of reads and writes expected for a given partition or an entire stream.);
creating, by the computing device, a second set of multiple recursive partitions based on the change in the update frequency (see [0138] – A modified partition mapping, different from the mapping in use at the time of repartitioning decision, may be generated for the stream.); and
merging, by the computing device, the plurality of documents based on the second set of multiple recursive partitions (see [0138] – The selected mapping may then be used to identify the appropriate storage node from which the request data is to be obtained.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repartition the documents of Beijing/Okamoto/Zhao in the manner taught by Theimer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to maintain balanced partitions based on the detection of triggers (Beijing: see page 2; Theimer: see [0137]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with regards to the 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that independent claims 1, 12 and 20 have different scopes. Claim 1 fails to mention a vector database.
Referring to page 9 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that features of claim 1 are deeply embedded in technology. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed limitations are merely using a computer to perform generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). The steps of sorting, choosing and merging are mental processes that could be performed in the mind except for generic computer components. These are all concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. For example, a person can sort a plurality of documents in an increasing order of frequency updates. The person can the create a plurality of options for partitioning the documents. The person can then calculate a cost for each option and then choose the cheapest option. The person can then create a table or index depicting the documents. The Applicant further points to the August 2025 USPTO Memorandum. The Memo states “The USPTO subject matter eligibility analysis follows this precedent and instructs examiners to determine that a claim recites a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” The intentions of the Memo is to remind Examiner’s that a claim must recite at least one mental limitation in order for the claim to be considered under the “Mental Processes” category. As stated above, the steps of sorting, choosing and merging are mental processes that could be performed in the mind since these are all concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Therefore, the claim is not eligible under Step 2A, Prong 1.
The Applicant argues Step 2A Prong 2 on pages 10-12 of the Remarks.
With regards to the arguments on page 10 of the Remarks, the Applicant states “The claims pass muster under Step 2A Prong 2 because the claims apply, rely on, or use the alleged judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the alleged judicial exception.” According to MPEP 2106.05(e), the claim should add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. The Applicant argues that claim 1 recites a specific manner of sorting the documents, a specific type of determining and specific type of creating. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims state a specific manner in which to do this. The claim merely states what is done and what criteria and conditions are used and not how the task is accomplished.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-11 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that the claims pass muster under Step 2A Prong 2 because the claims provide an improvement to a technical field of vector databases because the claims improve parallelism during re-computation of the vector database in comparison to the complex process of using a mapping approach using identified chunks within documents of the vector database (Applicant’s specification paragraph 0016). This paragraph is a generalized summary of improvements. Claim 1 fails to mention any type of vector database or parallelism. While claims 12 and 20 mention a vector database, there is not any type of parallelism claimed. The paragraph does not depict which limitations realize the improvement. Furthermore, the improvement cannot be within the abstract idea itself.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments on page 11 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that the claims pass muster under Step 2A Prong 2 because the claims effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discusses in MPEP 2106.05(c). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. An "article" includes a physical object or substance. The physical object or substance must be particular, meaning it can be specifically identified. "Transformation" of an article means that the "article" has changed to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing usually means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which thoughts or human based actions are "changed" are not considered an eligible transformation. For data, mere "manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’" has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Changing the manner in which physical and/or software resources are utilized in vector databases is not a transformation of a physical object to another state or thing. Furthermore, it is noted once again that claim 1 fails to mention a vector database.
On pages 11-12 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that the features of claim 1 improves parallelism during merging of the documents within the vector database (see at least paragraph [0018] of the specification). It is noted that the claimed limitations are directed to the abstract idea and are not additional elements. Furthermore, as noted previously, claim 1 fails to mention a vector database. With regards to paragraph [0018] describing the improvement, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0018] is a generalized statement of problems and improvements. It does not depict which limitations realize the improvement. Furthermore, the improvement cannot be within the abstract idea itself.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments on page 12 concerning novelty of the invention, MPEP 2106.04 states the following:
The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. For example, the mathematical formula in Flook, the laws of nature in Mayo, and the isolated DNA in Myriad were all novel or newly discovered, but nonetheless were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were "‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection." Myriad, 569 U.S. 576, 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1976, 1978 (noting that Myriad discovered the BRCA1 and BRCA1 genes and quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all"); Mayo, 566 U.S. 73-74, 78, 101 USPQ2d 1966, 1968 (noting that the claims embody the researcher's discoveries of laws of nature). The Supreme Court’s cited rationale for considering even "just discovered" judicial exceptions as exceptions stems from the concern that "without this exception, there would be considerable danger that the grant of patents would ‘tie up’ the use of such tools and thereby ‘inhibit future innovation premised upon them.’" Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978-79 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 86, 101 USPQ2d at 1971). See also Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979 ("Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry."). The Federal Circuit has also applied this principle, for example, when holding a concept of using advertising as an exchange or currency to be an abstract idea, despite the patentee’s arguments that the concept was "new". Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Cf. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea") (emphasis in original).
With regards to Applicant’s arguments on page 12 of the Remarks with regards to Bascom, the Examiner has looked at the claim as a whole and the combination of the elements to determine patent eligibility. With regards to Bascom, neither the limitation or the arrangement of the limitations of the current application provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible when properly analyzed under step 2A Prongs 1 and 2 and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments concerning the prior art rejections, the Examiner has introduced a new reference to teach the newly added limitations to the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPub 2003/0028636 to Cherkasova et al teaches sorting documents in order of frequency (see [0031])
US PGPub 2011/0004601 to Peckham et al teaches sorting, by a computing device, a plurality of documents [files] (see [0007] – Sorting a list of files by an orderable characteristic.) and creating, by the computing device, partitions [threads] of the plurality of sorted documents (see [0009]-[0011] – Assigning the files to threads).
US PGPub 2025/0342179 to Gangumalla et al teaches the loading of documents into a vector database
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY LOVEL WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2750. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-270-1760. 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.
/KIMBERLY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165