DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the reply filed on 12/05/2025. Claims 1-14 and 16-21 are pending in this Action.
Remark
In the response filed 12/05/2025, claims 1 and 12 have been amended, claim 15 has been cancelled, and new claim 21 has been added.
The Applicant’s Interview Summary is acknowledged and it is OK.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to 35 USC 101 rejection:
Applicant in page 10 and 11 of the Remark asserts that the human mind is incapable of generating vector index as recited in amended claim 1 and “[t]he present combination of elements in Claim 1 improve computer-related technology pertaining to 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….” And therefore, the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the human mind is incapable of performing the feature of generating a vector index. The claimed limitation of generating a vector index is recited at a high-level of generality. Given the limitation it’s broadest and reasonable interpretation, it could be merely generating a list or index of vectors (digital representation) of few vectors. A computer is not required to implement this function. As such, a user (e.g., administrator) can mentally and manually build an index or list of vectors. Therefore, based on broadest and reasonable interpretation, the step of generating a vector index which recited at a high-level of generality could be practically be performed in the human mind, and thus it is incapable of improving the manner in which a computer functions. A claim that could be performed mentally cannot improve computer technology. See MPEP 2106.05.(a)(I)
Furthermore, the claimed steps of searching/traversing an index (e.g., vector index) and generating a result or output are also 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. 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. They do not describe any particular improvement in the manner of computer functions.
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 discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the 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).
In other words, the aforementioned additional element (or combination of elements) recited in the claims 1 and 23 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 35 USC 103 rejection:
Applicant's arguments with respect to newly amended claims 1 and 12 that “Tian fails to disclose that a number of vectors in a base table and a size of memory to store a to-be-generated vector index are factors in selecting a particular type of vector index” have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection over the new reference, Kawahara et al, US 6,658,492. The new combination of Tian and Kawahara discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 12 including said limitation. See below for further details.
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; [constitutes concepts of observation, evaluation, and judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind]
identifying a size of memory to store the vector index; [constitutes concepts of observation, evaluation, and 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; [constitutes concepts of observation, evaluation, and judgement which could be
practically performed in the human mind]
generating, for the base table, a vector index of the particular type; [constitutes concepts of observation, evaluation, and judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind]
in response to receiving a vector query: identifying a query vector that is associated with the vector query; [constitutes concepts of observation, evaluation, and judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind]
wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices (See Tian: at least highlighted sections of translation in page 5 and Fig. 5).
The above-mentioned steps are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “one or more computing device” and/or “one or more non-transitory storage media”, 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 recited 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” which are considered to be extra-solution activities of searching index and outputting results. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Claim 1 further include the limitation of “wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices” which is not amount to more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
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 recited 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” which are considered to be well-understood, conventional, and routine activities of searching index and outputting results. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Claim 1 further includes the limitation of “wherein the method is performed by
one or more computing devices” which is not amount to more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-10, 12-14, 16-19, and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al., CN 117056450 A (Tian, hereafter) in view of Kawahara et
al, US 6,658,492 (Kawahara, hereafter).
Regarding claim 1,
Tian discloses a method comprising:
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 (See Tian: at least highlighted sections of translation in pages 6 and 8-10, a number of vectors in a table is identified to generate a vector index);
based at least on the number of the plurality of vectors and the size of the memory, identifying a particular type of vector index from among a plurality of types of vector indexes (See Tian: at least highlighted sections of translation in pages 8-10 and 17, based on vectors and how much memory an index occupies, identify a type of index from a plurality of types of vector indexes such as HNSW, IVFFLAT, and IVFPQ. “The HNSW occupies more memory, …The IVFFLAT occupies less memory, …The IVFPQ occupies small memory, the table is built slowly, the searching speed is flat, the precision is lower than the IVFFLAT, and it is suitable for super-large data amount, cold data and so on.”);
generating, for the base table, a vector index of the particular type (See Tian: at least highlighted sections of translation in pages 8-10 and 17);
in response to receiving a vector query: identifying a query vector that is associated with the vector query (See Tian: at least highlighted sections of translation in pages 8-10 and 17, responsive to receiving a query/SQL, determining a vector associated with the query. “For example, the SQL command statement is: Select label, distance (' topK=10 & #039;) (vector, [1. 0, 1. 0, 1. 0]) as dist fromtest. The SQL command statement represents the vector column query from the test data table and the vector [1. 0, 1. 0, 1. 0] from the first 10, and returns its corresponding label and distance (dist). distance is self-defined operator in SQL for calculating distance between vectors.”);
traversing the vector index based on the query vector to identify a subset of the plurality of vectors; generating a result of the vector query based on the subset of the plurality of vectors (See Tian: at least highlighted sections of translation in pages 8-10 and 17, searching “index vector” based on the query and outputting index records comprising vectors);
wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices (See Tian: at least highlighted sections of translation in page 5 and Fig. 5).
Although, Tian discloses that different index needs less or more memory space, Tian does not expressly teach identifying a size of memory to store the vector index.
On the other hand, Kawahara discloses the feature determining the memory space need to store index (See Kawahara: at least Fig. 10 and 11:27-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of Tian with Kawahara’s teaching in order to implement above function with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency of method by determining the amount of memory required to store index and identify the type of index structure based on determined memory space.
Regarding claim 2,
the combination of Tian and Kawahara discloses wherein the plurality of types of vector indexes comprises an HNSW index and an IVF index (See Tian: at least
highlighted sections of translation in pages 8-10 and 17).
Regarding claim 3,
the combination of Tian and Kawahara discloses identifying a number of neighbors that is a parameter in generating a certain type of vector index; wherein identifying the particular type of vector index is further based on the number of neighbors (See Tian: at least highlighted sections of translation in page 17, for creating vector index type of HNSW identifying number of neighbor nodes).
Regarding claim 4,
the combination of Tian and Kawahara discloses receiving a database statement that includes an instruction to create a vector index; in response to receiving the database statement, determining to generate the vector index (See Tian: at least highlighted sections of translation in pages 7-8).
Regarding claim 5,
the combination of Tian and Kawahara discloses determining to generate an IVF index that will comprise a centroids table and a plurality of partitions storing the plurality of vectors, each partition corresponding to a different centroid of a plurality of centroids in the centroids table (See Tian: at least highlighted sections of translation in page 9 and Fig. 2);
determining a number of centroids in the plurality of centroids; based on the number of centroids, determining whether to generate an HNSW index for the centroids table (See Tian: at least highlighted sections of translation in page 9-10 and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6,
the combination of Tian and Kawahara discloses in response to determining to generate an HNSW index for the centroids table, generating the HNSW index for the centroids table; causing the HNSW index to be stored in each compute instance of a plurality of compute instances (See Tian: at least highlighted sections of translation in page 9-10 and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7,
the combination of Tian and Kawahara discloses determining to generate an IVF index that will comprise a centroids table and a plurality of partitions storing the plurality of vectors, each partition corresponding to a different centroid of a plurality of centroids in the centroids table (See Tian: at least highlighted sections of translation in page 9 and Fig. 2, generating an IVF (e.g., IVFFLAT) comprising a table and clusters (partitions) with different cluster centers (centroids) for vectors); for each partition of multiple partitions in the plurality of partitions, generating an HNSW index for vectors that are stored in said each partition (See Tian: at least highlighted sections of translation in page 9-10 and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8,
the combination of Tian and Kawahara discloses based on a number of vector queries that result in accessing two or more partitions of the plurality of partitions, generating a single HNSW index for vectors that are stored in the two or more partitions (See Tian: at least highlighted sections of translation in page 11 and
Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9,
the combination of Tian and Kawahara discloses generating an IVF index that
comprises a centroids table and a plurality of partitions storing the plurality of vectors, each partition corresponding to a different centroid of a plurality of centroids in the centroids table; identifying a subset of the plurality of partitions; causing each partition in the subset to be stored in a different compute instance of a plurality of compute instances (See Tian: at least highlighted sections of translation in page 9 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10,
the combination of Tian and Kawahara discloses wherein the plurality of vectors is a first plurality of vectors, wherein the vector index is a first vector index, the method further comprising, after generating the first vector index of the particular type: receiving a first plurality of changes to the first plurality of vectors; updating the first plurality of vectors based on the first plurality of changes to generate a second plurality of vectors that is different than the first plurality of vectors (See Tian: at least highlighted sections of translation in page 15, adding/deleting to the vector indexes (e.g., IVFPQ type) and generating second vectors (V2));
based at least on the number of the second plurality of vectors, identifying a second type of vector index from among the plurality of types of vector indexes, wherein the second type of vector index is different than the particular type; generating a second vector index of the second type (See Tian: at least highlighted sections of translation in page 15, identifying a second type of index (e.g., HNSW) for the second vectors (V2)).
Regarding claims 12-14, 16-19, and 21,
the scopes of the claims are substantially the same as claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, and 8, respectively, and are rejected on the same basis as set forth for the rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, and 8, respectively.
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.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
02/04/2026