DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 05/05/2026. Claims 1-14 and 16-21 are pending in this Action. Claim 15 has been previously cancelled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/05/2026 has been entered.
Remark
In response to the final Office action mailed 02/06/2026, claims 1, 5, 7, 9, and 12 have been amended, no claim has been cancelled, and no new claim has been added.
The Applicant's Interview Summary is acknowledged by the Examiner, and it is OK.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 03/09/2026 and 08/08/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 USC 101 rejection:
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claims 1 and 12, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s allegation in page 10 of the Remark that “…the generating step cannot be practically performed in the human mind, at least because a human mind is incapable of generating a vector index in a computer system, much less a vector index that is greater than one hundred megabytes, much less search such a data structure in response to a vector query.”
Claims 1 and 12 recite the limitation of “generating, for the base table, in a computer system, a vector index of the particular type, wherein the particular type requires more of the available memory than one or more other types in the plurality of types, wherein the vector index of the particular type is greater than a hundred megabytes”. Based on broadest and reasonable interpretation (BRI), this limitation is no more than generating a vector index of particular type that needs more memory than other types being greater than a hundred megabytes. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality. As such, under Step 2A, Prong 1, the feature of generating a vector index of particular type involves an act of observation, evaluation, or judgement that could practically be performed in the human mind. A person (e.g., an administrator) can manually with aid of a pen and paper generate a list of records or index of data.
The feature that the index of a particular type requires more memory than other types being greater than a hundred megabytes could be is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This element is recited at a high-level of generality and giving BRI, they employ generic computer elements to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As such, despite associated memory requirements to the step of generating a vector index, the core step of generating an index could be mental process.
Furthermore, applicant in page 11 of the Remark alleges that the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application because the claim invention improves “generating and searching vector indexes in volatile memory of a vector-supported database system, which may be part of an on-premise database system or a cloud-based database system.” Applicant further asserts that current invention solves the problem of a “non-optimal manual selection of the index vector index or a specific configuration.” The applicant further asserts that “[a]ccording to Claim 1, in response to a determination to generate a vector index (e.g., such as an instruction based on input from a user), a number of vectors and the size of available memory is automatically identified. These two factors are used to automatically identify a particular type of vector index from among multiple types of vectors indexes. This is a technical improvement over current vector database systems, which often result in poor use of computer resources and increased latency in processing vector queries. Accordingly, because of this technical improvement, any judicial exception is integrated into a practical application and the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but are directed to patent eligible subject matter. Reconsideration and withdrawal of this rejection is therefore respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen from the applicant’s remarks the goal of the invention is to make manual selection of vector index automatic. So, a computer automatically identifies a particular type of vector index from among multiple types of vectors indexes. The Examiner holds claim invention is merely automating a manual process. The courts have indicated that “mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential)” may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality.
Moreover, the alleged improvement in “latency in processing vector queries” comes from use of a generic computer. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., generating an index) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. Thus, the current invention lacks the features to improve functioning of a computer or technology and therefore fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
The claimed steps of searching/traversing an index (e.g., vector index) and generating a result or output are recited at a high-level of generality and considered to be extra-solution and well-understood, conventional, and routine computer activities. At that level of generality, the claims do no more than describe desired function or outcome, without providing limiting details that confine the claimed to a practical solution to an identified problem. The features of searching vector index and generating result are extra-solution activities the central idea of claims. They do not describe any particular improvement in the manner of computer functions (under Step 2A, Prong 2). An invocation to use such an old technology in the manner it is intended to be used for its ordinary purpose is both generic and well-understood and conventional activity (under Step 2B).
The courts have identified limitations such as adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. “As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978).” See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II).
Therefore, the recited additional element (or combination of elements) recited in
claims 1 and 23 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Moreover, in response to Applicant’s allegation in page 12 of the Remark that “[b]ased on the amendment, the claims cannot be interpreted to generate a list or index of a few vectors. Also, a computer is required to implement the generation and traversal”, the Examiner holds that said limitation of “generating a vector index” is recited at a high level of generality and based on BRI, generating a vector index could involve few vectors. As it is explained above the feature of requiring a memory with hundred megabytes could be a mere linking the mental process to a computer field. Thus, the base feature of generating an index could be mental process without requiring a computer.
Lastly, in response to Applicant allegation in pages 12-13 that “[i]t is respectfully noted that whether a limitation is a well-understood, conventional, or routine computer activity is a step 2B question, not a step 2A question. Generating a vector index and searching the vector index are not directed to any abstract idea”, the Examiner holds that the Examiner’s statement was part of the response to applicant’s argument providing reasons why the claim invention did not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to more than abstract idea. However, as it can be seen, the additional limitations have been addressed separately both Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B. Some limitations could be both extra-solution activities (under Step 2A, Prong 2) and well-understood and conventional (under Step 2B), such as gathering data, searching data, or outputting data.
In conclusion, based on above explanation and reasoning, the 35 USC 101 rejection claims 1-10, 12-14, 16-19, and 21 for being direct to abstract idea is maintained.
With respect to 35 USC 103 rejection:
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-16 of the Remark, filed 04/06/2026, with
respect to 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-10, 12-14, 16-19, and 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-10, 12-14, 16-19, and 21 has been withdrawn.
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 1-10, 12-14, 16-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter of abstract ideas.
Step 1:
Claims 1-10, 12-14, 16-19, and 21 are directed to a method/storage media which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite the steps of:
in response to determining to generate a vector index based on a base table that stores a plurality of vectors, identifying a number of the plurality of vectors; [recited at a high-level of generality and giving the broadest and reasonable interpretation (BRI), it constitutes concepts of observation, evaluation, and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind]
identifying a size of memory to store the vector index; [recited at a high-level
of generality and giving BRI, it constitutes concepts of observation, evaluation, and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind]
based at least on the number of the plurality of vectors, identifying a particular type of vector index from among a plurality of types of vector indexes; [recited at a high-level of generality and giving BRI, it constitutes concepts of observation, evaluation, and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind]
generating, for the base table, a vector index of the particular type; [recited at a high-level of generality and giving BRI, it constitutes concepts of observation, evaluation, and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person with aid of a pen and paper can manually generate an index or a list of a particular]
in response to receiving a vector query: identifying a query vector that is associated with the vector query; [recited at a high-level of generality and giving BRI, it constitutes concepts of observation, evaluation, and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind]
The above-mentioned steps are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 12 recite the additional steps of “traversing the vector index based on the query vector to identify a subset of the plurality of vectors” and “generating a result of the vector query based on the subset of the plurality of vectors.” These steps are recited at a high-level of generality and giving BRI, they are extra-solution activities of searching index and outputting results. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Moreover, claims 1 and 12 recite the additional elements of “wherein the particular type requires more of the available memory than one or more other types in the plurality of types, wherein the vector index of the particular type is greater than a hundred megabytes.” The limitation that a particular type of index requires “memory greater than hundred megabytes” is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality and giving BRI, they employ generic computer elements to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 further include the limitation of “wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices” which is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 12 recites generic computer components (e.g., “one or more computing device” and/or “one or more non-transitory storage media”) to implement the steps of the invention. Said generic computer components 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 and considered to be insignificant extra solution activities. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1 and 12 recite the additional steps of “traversing the vector index based on the query vector to identify a subset of the plurality of vectors” and “generating a result of the vector query based on the subset of the plurality of vectors.” These steps are recited at a high-level of generality and giving BRI, they are well-understood, conventional, and routine activities of searching index and outputting results. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Moreover, claims 1 and 12 recite the additional elements of “wherein the particular type requires more of the available memory than one or more other types in the plurality of types, wherein the vector index of the particular type is greater than a hundred megabytes.” The limitation that a particular type of index requires “memory greater than hundred megabytes” is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality and giving BRI, they employ generic computer elements to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting
the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient.
Claim 1 further includes the limitation of “wherein the method is performed by
one or more computing devices” which is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 12 recites generic computer components (e.g., “one or more computing device” and/or “one or more non-transitory storage media”) to implement the steps of the invention. Said generic computer components 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 and considered to be well-understood, conventional, and routine activities. Accordingly, these additional elements do not add to more than abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16, and 17,
the dependent claims further recite data definition, the steps for identifying, determining, and generating that could be performed mentally failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or to amount significantly to more than
abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 4, 6, 8-10, 18, 19, and 21,
the dependent claims also lack additional elements that sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than abstract idea found in the independent claims. The dependent claims additional steps for generic computer functions of receiving a database statement, storing index/data, receiving changes, and updating vectors which are considered to be insignificant extra solution and/or well-understood routine computer routines of receiving and storing data failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or to amount significantly to more than abstract idea.
The dependent claims further recite the additional step for determining and generating that could be performed mentally failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or to amount significantly to more than abstract idea.
These additional elements do not: (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology; (2) are not applied with any particular machine (except for a generic computer); (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state; and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). In other words, the aforementioned additional element (or combination of elements) recited in the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Points of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARES JAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a-5:00p.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at (571) 270-1698. 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.
/Hares Jami/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
08/20/2026
Prosecution Insights