CTFR 18/885,630 CTFR 89708 DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA and is in response to communications filed on 3/28/2026 in which claims 1-19, 21 are presented for examination. Priority 02-27 AIA Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 63/563,926 , filed on 03/11/2024 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea as indicated below in Step 2A Prong One. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the reasons state below for Step 2A Prong Two. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the reasons stated below for Step 2B. STEP 1: TWO CRITERIA FOR SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY First, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes , machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The claims fall into the category of process in a computer system environment that is tangibly embodied in a manner so as to be executable. Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas , laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature). STEP 2A: TWO PRONGS PRONG 1: RECITES ABSTRACT IDEA, LAW OF NATURE, NATURAL PHENOMENON Claims 1-19, 21 are directed to an abstract idea , specifically, a mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion ). Independent claim recites in part: A method comprising: …; identifying a second version, of the vector, that is different than the first version and that is not stored in the vector object; in response to receiving an instruction to store the second version in the vector object: identifying the vector object, …; …; wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices. The limitations above are broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process, as a form or mental evaluation or judgement. For example, one can mentally perform the functions above using observation and evaluation to identify versions that are different and using judgment based on that step to identify the vector object. There isn’t even a concluding step that utilizes these abstract analysis techniques. Furthermore, consistent with the specification as in paragraphs [0004]-[0012] this process has also been performed previously. PRONG TWO: DOES NOT INTEGRATE INTO PRACTICAL APPLICATION The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The one or more computing devices and non-transitory storage media storing instructions are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitations of “ storing a first version of a vector in a vector object ”, “ updating the vector object to include the second version in addition to the first version ”, “ inserting, into a next version reference field of the vector object, a value …, within the vector object, of the first version or of the second version ” as drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, as a form of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results; with the additional insignificant extrasolution activity of electronic recordkeeping. The term “ storing ” and “ updating ” are broad, and consistent with the specification as in [0052], can include table storage such as “a column for storing vectors and one or more column for storing user data, such as a column for storing a user identifier, a column for storing a user profile, a column for storing user search history, a column for storing user access history, a column for storing user-generated content, etc.” and “replacing vectors from an old model with a new model”, respectively, which, in both cases, is form of pre-solution data gathering, storing, and displaying that does not provide integration into a practical application because there’s no integration into a practical application. The claim limitations are abstract ideas that are performed by the stated computing components, but general computer components such as this/these don’t provide integration into a practical application. The specification offers specific descriptions, but the claims themselves don’t adequately tie the computing components in with the abstract mental ideas in order to integrate the elements into a practical application. Accordingly, these recitations represent further mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, by invoking generic computer components as a tool under MPEP 2106.05(f) or generally linking the abstract idea to the field of use of computing components under MPEP 2106.05(h). Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination and taking the claim as a whole, there still is not integration into a practical application. The claims also don’t appear to improve the functioning of a computer or require the use of a specific machine. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they don’t impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. STEP 2B: DOES NOT AMOUNT TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE As per MPEP 2106.05(II) the considerations discussed above for mere instructions to apply the exception and merely linking to a field of use are carried over for Step 2B. The computing components as stated above represent the means on which to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Similarly, the abstract ideas are performed by said computing components, and also remain mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, or generally linking the abstract idea to the field of use of data that indicates a location . Additionally, this appears to be admitted and described in the specification as well-understood, routine, and conventional including at [0004]-[0012] as commercially available products such as stored vectors are searched using a class of algorithms known as “Similarity Search” or “Approximate Nearest Neighbor (ANN)” to find the closest vectors to a query vector . As stated under MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(A), “A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements … as a commercially available product …” Even considering these additional elements as a combination and taking the claim as a whole, they do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The claim doesn’t include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. similar reasoning applies to claims 13 and 15 Claims 2-12 are dependent on claim 1, and include updating objects based on observation of the data, which doesn’t provide integration into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea because this is further mental activity combined with the insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data gathering based on data observation combined with electronic recordkeeping. Further specification of the type of data with identification of versions and BLOBs doesn’t overcome this idea because these are further data types appended to the abstract ideas. Similar claims 14, 16-19 and 21 are also rejected for similar reasons. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3-5, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Walker et al. US 20190251069 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Walker”) . As per claim 1, Walker teaches: A method comprising: storing a first version of a vector in a vector object (Walker, [0012] – The first vhash vector can be associated with one version) ; identifying a second version, of the vector, that is different than the first version and that is not stored in the vector object (Walker, [0009] – Determine a proposed new data vector to be referenced by the second vhash vector; and determine whether the at least one memory is already storing the proposed new data vector by comparing a cryptographic hash of the proposed new data vector with the cryptographic hash of each data vector already stored in the at least one memory. [0012] – The at least one memory can further comprise a second vhash vector associated with a second version, the second vhash vector having a sequence of elements, wherein each element in the second vhash vector can be configured to store a unique identifier associated with a data vector) ; in response to receiving an instruction to store the second version in the vector object: identifying the vector object, updating the vector object to include the second version in addition to the first version (Walker, [0009] – When the at least one memory is not already storing a matching data vector, the at least one processor can store the proposed new data vector in the at least one memory, and store a unique identifier associated with the cryptographic hash of the proposed new data vector in the second vhash vector) ; inserting, into a next version reference field of the vector object, a value that indicates a location, within the vector object, of the first version or of the second version (Walker, [0009] – Store a unique memory location reference) ; wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices (Walker, [0062]-[0064] – Devices) . As per claim 3, Walker teaches: The method of Claim 1, wherein updating the vector object comprises appending the second version to the vector object, the method further comprising: identifying a third version, of the vector, that is different than the first and second versions and that is not stored in the vector object (Walker, [0113] – The system now compares the third records of compound vectors CV P and CV A with the second record of CV B. The third record (KP, Pn) in CV P is (“Jan. 5”, 17), the third record (KA, An) in CV A is (“Jan. 5, 69), and the second record (KB, Bn) in CV B is (“Jan. 3”, 4)) ; in response to receiving a second instruction to store the third version in the vector object: identifying the vector object, appending the third version to the vector object, inserting, into a second next version reference field of the vector object, a value that indicates a location of the third version of the vector (Walker, [0113] – In this case, the system can determine to insert (KB, Bn) into the merged vector CV M. This can be seen by the addition of (“Jan. 3”, 4) into merged vector CV M, on the right) . As per claim 4, Walker teaches: The method of Claim 1, wherein updating the vector object comprises prepending the second version to the vector object, the method further comprising: identifying a third version, of the vector, that is different than the first and second versions and that is not stored in the vector object (Walker, [0082] – Can compare the hash of the proposed new vector against hashes of vectors in a pool of vectors) ; in response to receiving a second instruction to store the third version in the vector object: identifying the vector object, prepending the third version to the vector object (Walker, [0143] – This 4-byte hash index is required during data change/entry operations when new vectors are constructed based on a user's input. This reads on the definition of prepending based on byte offset determinations) ; inserting, into a second next version reference field of the vector object, a value that indicates a location of the second version (Walker, [0127] – The DemandLines column can store a memory reference, denoted as VhashVector Hash 1404. The “memory reference” can be an identifier that uniquely identifies a location in database memory) . As per claim 5, Walker teaches: The method of Claim 1, further comprising: in response to receiving a second instruction to retrieve a particular version of the vector: identifying the vector object, identifying the value in the next version reference field of the vector object, identifying the location, within the vector object, based on the value (Walker, [0017] – Storing, in the at least one memory, a second header table that stores an association between the second key label and a unique memory location reference associated with the second vhash vector) ; based on the location, retrieving the particular version (Walker, [0068] – Once the system has determined the correct locations, the system can then navigate to the records in DemandLines table 202 containing the records (e.g., rows) corresponding to orders that have OrderId SO-001. [0084] – Grouping records according to these other fields can give users of databases more flexibility in quickly accessing all records that pertain to a specific part type, to a specific project ID, or to a specific customer, etc.) . Claims 15, 17-19 are directed to one or more storage media performing steps recited in claims 1, 3-5 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejections made to claims 1, 3-5 are applied to claims 15, 17-19 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 6-9, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Muddu et al. US 20170223036 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Muddu”) . As per claim 2, Walker doesn’t go into detail about a model version, however, Muddu teaches: The method of Claim 1, wherein, prior to the receiving the instruction, the vector object includes a first model version field that includes a first value that indicates a first version of a model that generated the first version of the vector, the method further comprising: inserting, into a second model version field of the vector object, a second value that indicates a second version of the model that generated the second version of the vector (Muddu, [0290] – Model registry) ; wherein the second version of the model is different than the first version of the model (Muddu, [0292] – The model type topology 1714 specifies how the ML-based CEP engine 1500 groups and distributes model-specific process threads to, for example, the different computation workers 1526 in the distributed computation system 1520. The model type topology 1714 also specifies how the ML-based CEP engine 1500 groups and distribute the input data for the model-specific process threads of the same model type 1602) ; wherein the second value is different than the first value (Muddu, [0292] – Code reference or model type name is interpreted as the value) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Walker’s invention in view of Muddu in order to include model versions; this is advantageous because the system can train as many models of the model type as there are known entities (Muddu, paragraph [0290]). As per claim 6, Walker as modified with Muddu teaches: The method of Claim 5, further comprising: storing, in a first model version field of the vector object, a first value indicating a first version of a model that generated the first version of the vector (Muddu, [0292] – Code reference or model type name is interpreted as the value) ; storing, in a second model version field of the vector object, a second value indicating a second version of the model that generated the second version of the vector (Muddu, [0292] – Code reference or model type name is interpreted as the value) ; in response to receiving the second instruction: identifying a particular model version that is associated with the particular version (Muddu, [0290] – The model type definition 1700 includes a model type identifier 1704) ; after identifying the vector object, performing a comparison between (1) the particular model version and (2) (a) the first value in the first model version field of the vector object or (b) the second value in the second model version field of the vector object (Muddu, [0316] – The model deliberation process compares the score against a constant threshold and makes the security-related conclusion based on the comparison) ; wherein retrieving the particular version is also based on the comparison (Muddu, [0322] – Because the downstream processing may be dependent on the order of the events (e.g., for building a behavioral baseline for a user or a device), the HDFS connector can to retrieve the stored event data in the order that the event takes place) . As per claim 7, Walker as modified with Muddu teaches: The method of Claim 5, wherein the second instruction specifies the particular version (Muddu, [0322] – One of the data connectors that can be used by the security platform 300 introduced here is a specialized connector (e.g., the HDFS™ connector) that can issue instructions (e.g., a query), operations, or otherwise interact with the non-relational database that stores the data) . As per claim 8, Walker as modified with Muddu teaches: The method of Claim 5, wherein the second instruction does not specify the particular version and the particular version is a default version associated with the second instruction (Muddu, [0439] – The GUI can provide views that are automatically configured via default settings, or the GUI can enable a user to customize a view, for example, to filter out data points that are less critical, distracting, or unnecessary, to zoom in and out, or re-format the view) . As per claim 9, Walker as modified with Muddu teaches: The method of Claim 1, further comprising: receiving a database statement that modifies a column, of a table, that stores a plurality of vectors (Muddu, [0174] – The infrastructure which may operate in batch mode includes the SQL store 378 that stores information accessible by scripted query language (SQL)) ; wherein the database statement specifies a particular version, from among a plurality of versions, as a current version of each vector of the plurality of vectors in the column (Muddu, [0172] – Additional information such as the version of the models, the identification of the models used, and the time that the detection is made, may also be stored) . Claims 16 and 20 are directed to one or more storage media performing steps recited in claims 2 and 9 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejections made to claims 2 and 9 are applied to claims 16 and 20 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Diaconu et al. US 20250068605 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Diaconu”) . As per claim 10, Walker doesn’t go into detail about BLOBs, however, Diaconu teaches: The method of Claim 1, wherein the vector object is a binary large object (BLOB) (Diaconu [0234] – Sends a request to the blob store to read data, which produces column-based blobs using delete vectors) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Walker’s invention in view of Diaconu in order to include BLOBs; this is advantageous because it can provide an efficient response to a large analytical-style read request when the requests are received (Diaconu, paragraph [0029]). As per claim 11, Walker as modified with Diaconu teaches: The method of Claim 1, further comprising: receiving a table specification that specifies a column having a VECTOR datatype (Diaconu, [0290] – Thus, additional columns are included with the rowset: [0291] delete vector column: each cell stores an optional delete pointer to the previous version deleted by this version) ; wherein the specification does not specify a number of dimensions for vectors that will be stored in the column; wherein the first version has a first number of dimensions and the second version of the vector has a second number of dimensions that is different than the first number of dimensions (Diaconu, [0032] – reading from more than a preconfigured set limit of different tables (table unit limit), reading more than a set number of columns) . As per claim 12, Walker as modified with Diaconu teaches: The method of Claim 1, further comprising: receiving a table specification that specifies a column having a VECTOR datatype (Diaconu, [0237] – Const std:: vector <ParquetColumn>& schema); [0246] void writeRowsets(const std::vector<Rowset>& rowsets) ; wherein the specification does not specify a dimension format for vectors that will be stored in the column; wherein the first version has a first dimension format and the second version of the vector has a second dimension format that is different than the first dimension format (Diaconu, [0235] – The following discussion relates to an open file format (e.g., Apache Parquet corresponding to a column-oriented data file format for efficient data storage and retrieval) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Horvitz et al. US 20240256958 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Horvitz”) . As per claim 21, Walker doesn’t explicitly teach first and second embedding models, however, Horvitz teaches: The method of Claim 1, wherein: the first version of the vector is generated by a first embedding model; the second version of the vector is generated by a second embedding model that is different than the first embedding model (Horvitz, [0081] – Feature vectors and their corresponding embeddings generated in accordance with mechanisms described herein may be stored for an indefinite period of time . [0091] – One or more embeddings are received from one or more of the embedding models. A collection of embeddings may be associated with a first embedding model . The collection of embeddings may be uniquely associated with the first embedding model, such that a second embedding model generates a different collection of embeddings than the first embedding model . Further, in some examples, the collection of embeddings may be uniquely associated with the version of the first embedding model, such that a different version of the first embedding model generates a different collection of embeddings) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Walker’s invention in view of Horvitz in order to include embedding models; this is advantageous because memory corresponding to the data structure in which the one or more of the embeddings are stored may be arranged or stored in a manner that groups the embeddings together, within the data structure, such as to improve efficiency for subsequent search processes (Horvitz, paragraph [0081]) . Allowable Subject Matter Claim 13 as well as dependent claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant’s arguments filed 3/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s substantive arguments pertaining to 101 issues begin on page 11 of Remarks where there is a total of 1 specific argument which is addressed below . Argument: Applicant argues in Remarks on page 11 that claims are patent eligible because the claims set forth a practical application to the abstract idea in the form of utilizing a specific type of storage object. Applicant concludes by saying claim 1 saves on semantic search application development as a result of avoiding the creation of multiple columns on a base table, one for each version of a vector. Therefore, Claim 1 is much faster than prior approaches that would replace all vectors from an older model and benefits semantic search application development. In Response: Claims remain rejected under 101 judicial exception because of the abstract way in which the language is claimed. Applicant, for instance, further down in the Remarks of 3/28/2026 argues that the vector object isn’t mapped correctly. The wording of the claim language, “ vector object ” is the reason for why the 101 judicial exception holds. This vector object isn’t clearly defined in the specification as a column type, a BLOB, or any flexible storage object which is decided upon based on a method or system that illustrates the practical application or the inventive concept. Instead, it appears to be merely an abstract way to store data such as an array, table, etc. Applicant could clarify that this vector object is flexible and that it comprises a plurality of different storage options where one option is selected based on analysis of the data being stored as found in at least paragraphs [0054]-[0055]. This would tie Applicant’s arguments into the language of the claimed limitations rather than relying on a subjective interpretation of the claims. MPEP 2106.05(a) lays out the criteria for determining if the improvements to the functioning of a computer are significantly more. “An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art… 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 . Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.” In conclusion, the 101 judicial exception holds due to the language of the claims being unclear with respect to the definition of the vector object, but Applicant is encouraged to clarify the vector object in line with support from the specification as argued. This approach would likely overcome the judicial exception upon further consideration. Applicant’s substantive arguments pertaining to 103 issues begin on page 13 of Remarks where there is a total of 3 specific arguments which are addressed below. Argument: Applicant argues in Remarks on page 13, “While there is a ‘at least one memory’ in Walker, it is not clear what is being equated to the recited vector object, which is an object that includes or stores both versions of a vector.” In Response: As addressed above, the vector object isn’t clear in the claims. Therefore, even a general memory storage means can be interpreted as a vector object. Reference Walker describes at least one memory throughout paragraphs [0006]-[0013] and more. Paragraph [0024] of the specification recites a very clear instance for which a what vector object could be interpreted: “ In a related technique , vectors are versioned, allowing a specific row of a single vector column to store multiple vector versions in the same vector object ”. Although the specification contains clarity on how the versions are stored, the claim under a broadest reasonable interpretation doesn’t include this clarification, and the specification is clear that this one of many “related technique[s]”. Throughout the specification, there are many “examples”, instances which “may be”, possible “embodiments”, but there’s no clear definition for a vector object. Therefore, based on a reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, the prior art of record teaches the claimed limitation. Argument: Applicant argues in Remarks on page 13, “Furthermore, paragraph 9 of Walker mentions nothing about versioning. In fact, paragraph 9 is agnostic to versioning.” In Response: Reference Walker teaches versions which is what reads on the claims. It should be noted that “versioning” isn’t explicitly recited in the claims either. Paragraph [0024] of the specification recites, “ In a related technique, vectors are versioned, allowing a specific row of a single vector column to store multiple vector versions in the same vector object”. Again, the key phrase here is “in a related technique” which means that versioning isn’t part of a clear definition associated with the vector object that must occur. Therefore, based on a reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, the prior art of record teaches the claimed limitation. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., versioning) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns , 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Argument: Applicant argues in Remarks on page 13, “Additionally, the ‘unique memory location reference’ (i.e., the alleged next version reference field of a vector object) that the Office Action cites is stored when the proposed new data vector (i.e., the alleged second version of the vector) matches another data vector (i.e., the alleged first version of the vector).” In Response: Reference Walker teaches in [0009] – “When the at least one memory is already storing a matching data vector, the at least one processor can store a unique memory location reference associated with the matching data vector in the second vid vector. When the at least one memory is not already storing a matching data vector, the at least one processor can store the proposed new data vector in the at least one memory, and store a unique identifier associated with the cryptographic hash of the proposed new data vector in the second vhash vector. ” Walker doesn’t appear to teach that first and second versions are “the same” as Applicant alleges. Instead, the versions are associated with one another and are stored in this manner. This also makes sense in a broad sense of the term “version”. Versions are often based on the same service or product, but with modifications such as fixes, improvements, etc. Therefore, a version stored within a same memory (interpreted as a vector object) makes sense. Paragraph [0024] of the specification recites, “ In a related technique , vectors are versioned, allowing a specific row of a single vector column to store multiple vector versions in the same vector object ”. Once more, the key phrase here is “in a related technique” which means that the specific storage structure doesn’t need to occur in the claims. Therefore, based on a reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, the prior art of record teaches the claimed limitation . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Collins et al. US 20230332923 A1 teaches a method to manage map data includes storing a map of a geographic area using an immutable tree. The immutable tree comprises a plurality of nodes stored using a distributed hash table (Abstract). Baek et al. US 20180189369 A1 teaches a first client device can determine differences or the “diff” between the first version and a second or next-to-latest version of the content item and upload the first version and the diff to the content management system (Abstract). Skupin et al. US 11436270 B2 teaches updating a domain ontology based on a received request by storing updates to the domain ontology in a triple store (Abstract). He et al. 2017, “Neural Collaborative Filtering”, https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3038912.3052569, pgs. 173-181 THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew J. Ellis whose telephone number is (571)270-3443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached at (571) 272-8352. 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. May 30, 2026 /MATTHEW J ELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153 Application/Control Number: 18/885,630 Page 2 Art Unit: 2153
Prosecution Insights