Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is response to the communication filed on March 30, 2026. Claims 1-9 are pending. 10-19 and 21 withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argument regarding restriction filed on March 30, 2026 is not persuasive because each set of claims different from each other. Applicant is encouraged to compare each set of claims side by side identify difference.
Applicant's arguments regarding art rejection filed on September 25, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot in the view of new ground of rejection.
Regarding 101 rejection applicant argues the claims are directed to an improvement in computer related technology. Reconsideration and withdrawn of the rejection under 35 U.S.C is therefore respectfully requested.
Applicant argument is not persuasive. The selecting, generating, and storing limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitation accessing an embedding that was generated by an embedding model, wherein the one or more characteristics include (a) a distance function that is to be used with the sparse vector representation or (b) a dimension format of dimension values in the embedding may considered as additional limitation but insignificant extra solution activity. 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 element of accessing step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, 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)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding the claim 1, it recites accessing an embedding that was generated by an embedding model; based on one or more characteristics associated with the embedding, selecting a particular storage format from among a plurality of storage formats in which to store the embedding; wherein the one or more characteristics include (a) a distance function that is to be used with the sparse vector representation or (b) a dimension format of dimension values in the embedding; generating a sparse vector representation based on the embedding and the particular storage format; storing, in persistent storage, the sparse vector representation; wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices.
The recited the limitations of selecting, generating, and storing as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. User can mentally select a storage format from the received data, mentally generate vector and memorize it which are a mental process. If necessary, user can use physical aid (paper and pencil). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III, B, If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."). Therefore, these limitations are a mental process.
The claim recites three additional elements: accessing an embedding that was generated by an embedding model, wherein the one or more characteristics include (a) a distance function that is to be used with the sparse vector representation or (b) a dimension format of dimension values in the embedding. The accessing step as recited amounts to mere data gathering for use in the selection step, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Accordingly, even in combination, 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 the abstract idea.
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 element of accessing step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, 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)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of generating and managing sparse vector representations. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the one or more characteristics include a distance function that is to be used with the sparse vector representation, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of generating and managing sparse vector representations. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the distance function is one of dot distance, cosine distance, hamming, Euclidean, Euclidean squared, or Manhattan, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of generating and managing sparse vector representations. The claim recites the limitations of the one or more characteristics include a dimension format of dimension values in the embedding; the method further comprising making a determination that the dimension format is a binary format; selecting the particular storage format based on the determination; storing the sparse vector representation includes storing, within the sparse vector representation, a dimension positions array but not a dimension values array, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of generating and managing sparse vector representations. The claim recites the limitations of determining whether to store the embedding as a sparse vector or a dense vector; wherein generating the sparse vector representation is performed in response to determining to store the embedding as a sparse vector, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5 and includes all the limitations of claim 5. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of generating and managing sparse vector representations. The claim recites the limitations of wherein determining whether to store the embedding as a sparse vector comprises: determining a percentage of values in the embedding that are non-zero values; determining whether the percentage of values is less than a particular threshold percentage, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of generating and managing sparse vector representations. The claim recites the limitations of determining a distribution of a plurality of positions, within the embedding, that have non-zero dimension values; determining whether to perform delta encoding on the position values of the plurality of positions, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of generating and managing sparse vector representations. The claim recites the limitations of receiving a table specification that specifies a column having a VECTOR data type; wherein the table specification does not specify either a SPARSE type or a DENSE type, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 8 and includes all the limitations of claim 8. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of generating and managing sparse vector representations. The claim recites the limitations of storing, in the column, the sparse vector representation and one or more dense vectors representations, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid (Pub. No. : US 20240289416 A1) in the view of Lagudu et al. (Pub. No. : US 20220197973 A1) in the view of Saarinen et al. (Pub. No. : US 20150154285 A1)
As to clam 1 Reid teaches a method comprising:
accessing an embedding that was generated by an embedding model (paragraph [0060]: the control and data subsystem additionally includes a machine learning subsystem 1400 which may include a sparse matrix processor and/or memory);
based on one or more characteristics associated with the embedding, selecting a particular storage format from among a plurality of storage formats in which to store the embedding (paragraph [0047]: Selection of the bit-wise storage format for sparse vectors and matrices may be based on hardware and application requirements).
Reid does not explicitly disclose but Lagudu teaches generating a sparse vector representation based on the embedding and the particular storage format (paragraph [0039], [0047]: A sparse vector is generated and stored in a linear format in the set of registers. Note that format selection teaches by Reid (see above));
Storing, in persistent storage, the sparse vector representation (paragraph [0047]: a sparse vector 905 that is stored in a linear format in the set of registers);
wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices (paragraph [0027], [0029]: The processing system 200 includes a set of WGPs 205, 206, 207, 208 (collectively referred to herein as “the WGPs 205-208”) that implement pairs of compute units 210, 215. Some embodiments of the processing system 200 implement more or fewer WGP and corresponding compute units).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Reid by above limitations as taught by Lagudu to improve system efficiency (Lagudu, paragraph [0064]).
Reid and Lagudu do not explicitly disclose but Saarinen teaches wherein the one or more characteristics include (a) a distance function that is to be used with the sparse vector representation or (b) a dimension format of dimension values in the embedding (paragraph [0007], [0077]: forming a codebook of sparse vectors, said sparse vectors corresponding to said context tags, and said sparse vectors having a high dimension with respect to the number of non-zero elements in said sparse vectors. According to an embodiment, the method comprises calculating a distance between said first and second sparse context vectors to determine said difference, wherein said distance is calculated using at least one distance measure from the group of a Euclidean distance, a taxicab distance, a dot product and a Hausdorff distance). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Reid and Lagudu by adding above limitation as taught by Saarinen to detect the change in context to control the system (see Saarinen, abstract).
As to clam 2 Reid together with Lagudu and Saarinen teaches a method according to claim 1. Saarinen teaches wherein the one or more characteristics include the distance function that is to be used with the sparse vector representation (paragraph [0007]).
As to clam 3 Reid together with Lagudu and Saarinen teaches a method according to claim 2. Saarinen teaches wherein the distance function is one of dot distance, cosine distance, hamming, Euclidean, Euclidean squared, or Manhattan (paragraph [0007]).
As to clam 4 Reid together with Lagudu and Saarinen teaches a method according to claim 1. Reid teaches wherein: the one or more characteristics include a dimension format of dimension values in the embedding, the method further comprising making a determination that the dimension format is a binary format; selecting the particular storage format based on the determination, storing the sparse vector representation includes storing, within the sparse vector representation, a dimension positions array but not a dimension values array (paragraph [0041]-[0043]).
As to clam 5 Reid together with Lagudu and Saarinen teaches a method according to claim 1. Lagudu teaches determining whether to store the embedding as a sparse vector or a dense vector; wherein generating the sparse vector representation is performed in response to determining to store the embedding as a sparse vector (paragraph [0039]).
As to clam 6 Reid together with Lagudu and Saarinen teaches a method according to claim 5. Reid teaches wherein determining whether to store the embedding as a sparse vector comprises: determining a percentage of values in the embedding that are non-zero values, determining whether the percentage of values is less than a particular threshold percentage (paragraph [0042]).
As to clam 7 Reid together with Lagudu and Saarinen teaches a method according to claim 1. Reid teaches determining a distribution of a plurality of positions, within the embedding, that have non-zero dimension values; determining whether to perform delta encoding on the position values of the plurality of positions (paragraph [0041], [0045]).
As to clam 8 Reid together with Lagudu and Saarinen teaches a method according to claim 1. Reid teaches receiving a table specification that specifies a column having a VECTOR data type; wherein the table specification does not specify either a SPARSE type or a DENSE type (paragraph [0030]).
As to clam 9 Reid together with Lagudu and Saarinen teaches a method according to claim 8. Reid teaches storing, in the column, the sparse vector representation and one or more dense vectors representations (paragraph [0030], [0025]).
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD I UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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 at 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 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.
/MD I UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights