DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/23/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/23/26 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-9, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 18 recite the limitation "and include the decompressed one or more posting lists" in lines 27, 28, respectively. This portion of the limitation is unclear because the limitation does not clearly define whether or not the inclusion of the decompressed posting lists is simply in the selection of them as well as the vectors and what a selection actually entails within the context of the system/computer. For this reason, these claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant (MPEP 2171). Claims 2-9, 19-20 are also rejected for the same reason due to their dependency on claims .
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 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 10 recites a method for storing data in a storage device of a system including an information processing apparatus that includes a memory configured with a random access memory (RAM) and the storage device, which is connected to the information processing apparatus, configured with at least one of a solid state drive (SSD) and a hard disk drive (HDD), and has a larger data storage capacity than the memory comprises: indexing a plurality of searchable data pieces in a form of a structure that includes a plurality of posting lists, each of the posting lists including (1) one or more vectors, each of the one or more vectors corresponding to one of the searchable data pieces, and (2) a representative vector of the one or more vectors, the indexed plurality of searchable data pieces being stored in the memory; compressing at least one of the posting lists in accordance with a compression algorithm, which is one of a plurality of compression algorithms that can be used in the system; and after said compressing, transferring the compressed at least first one of the posting lists and the compression algorithm from the memory to the storage device to store the compressed at least first one of the posting lists and the compression algorithm in the storage device in association with each other.
The limitations of compressing at least one of the posting lists in accordance with a compression algorithm, which is one of a plurality of compression algorithms that can be used in the system; and after said compressing, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but from the recitation of implementing it on generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, this limitation encompasses the user judging a compression of posts lists according to a compression algorithm of a plurality of compression algorithms. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 10 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of – a method for storing data in a storage device of a system including an information processing apparatus that includes a memory configured with a random access memory (RAM) and the storage device, which is connected to the information processing apparatus, configured with at least one of a solid state drive (SSD) and a hard disk drive (HDD), and has a larger data storage capacity than the memory comprises: indexing a plurality of searchable data pieces in a form of a structure that includes a plurality of posting lists, each of the posting lists including (1) one or more vectors, each of the one or more vectors corresponding to one of the searchable data pieces, and (2) a representative vector of the one or more vectors, the indexed plurality of searchable data pieces being stored in the memory; ... transferring the compressed at least first one of the posting lists and the compression algorithm from the memory to the storage device to store the compressed at least first one of the posting lists and the compression algorithm in the storage device in association with each other. The system, memory, and storage device of a system including an information processing apparatus including memory configured with RAM and a storage device connected to an information processing apparatus configured with at least one SSD and HDD with larger capacity are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The additional elements pertaining to “storing...indexing”, “transferring”, “and storing” represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and the acquiring is a mere data gathering step. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements pertaining to “storing...indexing”, “transferring” “and storing” represent insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these limitations, both individually and in combination, fail to amount to an inventive concept because they merely append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, and thus, do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B). Accordingly, claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Claims 11-17 depend on claim 10 and include all the limitations of this claim. Therefore, these claims are directed to the same abstract idea and the analysis must proceed to (Step 2A, Prong 2).
Claim 11 recites additional limitations pertaining to storing compression algorithm, transferring the compression algorithm, and decompressing. The limitations pertaining to decompressing is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) as similarly identified in the independent claim. The additional limitations pertaining to storing and transferring do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. 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 claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements pertaining to storing and transferring represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12 recites additional limitations pertaining to storing a graph, transferring the graph, and/or selecting candidate posting lists. The limitations pertaining to selecting is directed to an abstract idea (mental process). The additional limitations pertaining to storing and acquiring do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. 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 claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements pertaining to storing and transferring represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13 recites additional limitations pertaining to determining, compressing, and posting lists stored. The limitations pertaining to determining, upon determining, when it is determined, and compressing are directed to an abstract idea (mental process). The additional limitations pertaining to posting lists being stored do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. 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 claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements pertaining to posting lists being stored represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14 recites additional limitations pertaining to the suitable compression algorithm. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of the determining step in claim 13, and, does not preclude this step from being performed mentally. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Claims 15, 16 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to the representative vectors. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps as indicated in the limitations pertaining to storage that stores as in the independent claims. 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 claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17 recites additional limitations pertaining to the searchable data pieces. These additional limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception as indicated for limitations as in the independent claim. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, this additional element represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to the amendment filed on 01/23/26.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pgs. 11-12, applicant argues that claim 1 provides an improvement and significantly more.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that claim 10 does not reflect the improvements as described by the applicant. MPEP 2106.05(a) states that “after the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P BARTLETT whose telephone number is (469)295-9085. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 11:30-8:30, F 11-3.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached on 571-272-9782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM P BARTLETT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169