DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Preliminary Amendment filed on August 01, 2025 for Application# 19/153,285 filed on August 01, 2025 in which claims 1-11 and 13-21 are presented for examination.
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 .
Status of claims
Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are pending, of which claims 1-11 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and also claims 1-11 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Priority
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. CN202310111187.1, filed on 02/03/2023.
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.
Claim 1-11 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. because the claims are directed to an abstract idea; and because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al, 573 U.S. (2014). In determining whether the claims are subject matter eligible, the Examiner applies the 2019 USPTO Patent Eligibility Guidelines. (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, Jan. 7, 2019.)
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes—Claim 1-11 and 13-21 recite a method and apparatus respectively.
The analysis of claims 1, 13 and 14 are as follows:
Step 2A, prong one:
The claim recites the following limitations which are drawn towards an abstract idea:
acquiring a first identifier of a target object entity (recites mental process of acquiring identifier with pen and a paper of a target object entity);
processing the first identifier through a preset function in a preset Bloom filter, to obtain first data (recites mental process of applying a filter and can be done on a pen and a paper of processing a preset function);
determining whether a subject entity performs a preset operation on the target object entity, based on a storage status of the first data in a preset bit array (recites mental process of determining to perform a preset operation of an entity).
As seen from above, the identified limitations recite concepts associated with an abstract idea and thus the respective claim recites a judicial exception (see 2106.04(a)) and thus requires further analysis as discussed below.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The following limitations have been identified as being additional elements as discussed below.
wherein data in the preset bit array comprises: second data which is obtained by processing a second identifier of an object entity through the preset function, in response to the subject entity performing the preset operation on the object entity (recites implementing the abstract idea on using an algorithmic preset function to an object entity, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, as seen from the above discussion, the identified limitations did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The additional elements merely recite, at a high-level of generality, generating augmenting large language model with graph knowledge.
Step 2B:
Below is the analysis of the claims:
an electronic device and a non-transitory medium, comprising: one or more processors; a storage device for storing one or more programs; wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement the data processing method of any one of wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors (recites implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer hardware which amounts to merely using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of processing and storing an object entity in a bit array, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as seen from above, the respective claim elements taken individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When taken as a whole (in combination), the claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements merely recite, at a high-level of generality, generating augmenting large language model with graph knowledge.
The analysis of claims 2-11 and 15-21 are as follows:
Step 2A, prong one:
The claim recites the following limitations which are drawn towards an abstract idea:
Claims 2, 15 and 19 recites wherein, the determining whether a subject entity performs a preset operation on the target object entity, based on a storage status of the first data in a preset bit array, comprises: in response to that the first data is not stored in the preset bit array, determining that the subject entity does not perform the preset operation on the target object entity (recites at a high-level of generality and a mental process of an algorithmic program of managing a bit array).
Claim 3 recites wherein, in response to that the first data is not stored in the preset bit array, determining that the subject entity does not perform the preset operation on the target object entity, comprises: determining a dimension in the first data whose value is 1; and in response to that not all elements corresponding to the dimension in the preset bit array are 1, determining that the subject entity does not perform the preset operation on the target object entity (recites at a high-level of generality and a mental process of an algorithmic program of managing a bit array).
Claims 4, 16 and 19 recites wherein the determining whether a subject entity performs a preset operation on the target object entity, based on a storage status of the first data in a preset bit array, comprises: in response to that the first data is stored in the preset bit array, determining a query identifier based on the first identifier and a subject identifier of the subject entity, and based on a storage status of the query identifier in a preset cache space, determining whether the subject entity performs the preset operation on the target object entity; wherein data in the preset cache space comprises a storage identifier which is generated based on a second identifier of an object entity and the subject identifier, in response to that the second data has been stored in the preset bit array (recites at a high-level of generality and a mental process of an algorithmic program of managing a bit array).
Claim 5 recites in response to that the query identifier is not stored in a preset cache space, determining whether the subject entity performs the preset operation on the target object entity based on a storage status of the query identifier in a preset source storage space; wherein data in the preset source storage space comprises, in response to the subject entity performing the preset operation on an object entity, a storage identifier generated based on the second identifier of the object entity and the subject identifier (recites at a high-level of generality and a mental process of an algorithmic program of managing a bit array).
Claims 6, 17 and 20 recites acquiring a first build time of the target object entity; the processing the first identifier through a preset function in a preset Bloom filter, comprises: in response to that a difference between the first build time and an acquisition time of acquiring the target object entity is less than or equal to a first preset value, processing the first identifier through the preset function; wherein the data in the preset bit array further comprises: the second data which is obtained by processing the second identifier of an object entity through the preset function, in response to that the subject entity performs the preset operation on the object entity and a difference between a second build time of the object entity and an operation time when the subject entity performs the preset operation on the object entity is less than or equal to the first preset value (recites at a high-level of generality and a mental process of an algorithmic program of managing a bit array).
Claim 7 recites in response to that the difference between the first build time and the acquisition time is greater than the first preset value, determining a query identifier based on the first identifier and the subject identifier of the subject entity, and determining whether the subject entity performs the preset operation on the target object entity based on a storage status of the query identifier in a preset cache space; wherein, data in the preset cache space comprises: a storage identifier which is generated based on a second identifier of an object entity and the subject identifier, in response to that the subject entity performs the preset operation on the object entity and a difference between the second build time of the object entity and the operation time is greater than the first preset value (recites at a high-level of generality and a mental process of an algorithmic program of managing a bit array).
Claims 8, 18 and 21 recites in response to that a fill ratio of the preset bit array is greater than a second preset value, determining a current layer number of the preset bit array; determining an actual resizing space of a next-layer array of the preset bit array, based on a preset resizing space corresponding to the current layer number and a current available space of the subject entity; and building the next-layer array according to the actual resizing space for storing the second data (recites at a high-level of generality and a mental process of an algorithmic program of managing a bit array).
Claim 10 recites in response to the subject entity performing the preset operation on the object entity, processing the second identifier of the object entity through the preset function of the Bloom filter corresponding to the preset operation to obtain the second data (recites at a high-level of generality and a mental process of an algorithmic program of managing a bit array).
Claim 11 recites wherein, the subject entity comprises an account entity, the object entity comprises an account entity or a content entity, and the preset operation comprises at least one of the following: like, dislike, forward, comment, and value attribute entity transfer (recites at a high-level of generality and a mental process of an algorithmic program of managing a bit array).
As seen from above, the identified limitations recite concepts associated with an abstract idea and thus the respective claim recites a judicial exception (see 2106.04(a)) and thus requires further analysis as discussed below.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The following limitations have been identified as being additional elements as discussed below.
Claim 9 recites after determining the actual resizing space of the next-layer array of the preset bit array, in response to that the actual resizing space does not meet a space required for current writing of the second data, acquiring a previous rebuild time of the preset bit array; in response to that a difference between the rebuild time and the current time is greater than or equal to a third preset value, rebuilding the preset bit array (recites at a high-level of generality and a mental process of running against preset bit array, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, as seen from the above discussion, the identified limitations did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The additional elements merely recite, at a high-level of generality, generating enhancing LLM with graph knowledge.
Step 2B:
Below is the analysis of the claims:
Claims 2-11 and 15-21 an electronic device and a non-transitory medium, comprising: one or more processors; a storage device for storing one or more programs; wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement the data processing method of any one of wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors (recites implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer hardware which amounts to merely using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of managing bit array using preset function on Bloom filter, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as seen from above, the respective claim elements taken individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When taken as a whole (in combination), the claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements merely recite, at a high-level of generality, manipulating bit array using preset function on Bloom Filter.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-11 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al CN 114186052 A (hereinafter ‘He’) (IDS Dated 11/24/25) in view of Khakpour et al. US 2013/0227051 A1 (hereinafter ‘Khakpour’) (IDS Dated 11/24/25).
As per claim 1, He disclose, A data processing method (He: page 1 Line 3: a data processing method), comprising:
acquiring a first identifier of a target object entity (He: page 2 Line 5: disclose acquire the to be processed event to obtain a set of attribute identification information ‘first identifier’ from event ‘target object entity’);
processing the first identifier through a preset function in a preset Bloom filter, to obtain first data (He: page 1 “Summary of the Invention”: disclose preset rule set of the Bloom filter Comparison is performed to determine whether the attribute identification information of the event to be processed is included in the rule set);
wherein data in the preset bit array comprises: second data which is obtained by processing a second identifier of an object entity through the preset function, in response to the subject entity performing the preset operation on the object entity (He: page 3 Lines 5-15: disclose determining that the attribute identification information of the event to be processed is included in the blacklist set, before the mapping of the attribute identification information to the data bits of the bit array of the Bloom filter).
It is noted, however, that He did not specifically detail the aspects of
determining whether a subject entity performs a preset operation on the target object entity, based on a storage status of the first data in a preset bit array as recited in claim 1.
On the other hand, Khakpour achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
determining whether a subject entity performs a preset operation on the target object entity, based on a storage status of the first data in a preset bit array (Khakpour: paragraph 0071: disclose when all of the bit array positions for the hash function produced indices are set in the bit array, it is an indication that the content being requested was requested at least once before; - the content being requested being sent, downloaded, etc corresponds to the preset operation executed by the subject on the target entity).
He and Khakpour are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and both from the same “problem-solving area”. Namely, they are both from the field of “Data Processing Systems”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of He and Khakpour because they are both directed to data processing systems and both are from the same field of endeavor. The skilled person would therefore regard it as a normal option to include the restriction features of Khakpour with the method described by He in order to solve the problem posed.
The motivation for doing so would have been for optimized multi-hit caching technique that avoids the performance impact that long-tail content (Khakpour: paragraph 0012).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Khakpour with He to obtain the invention as specified in instant claim 1.
As per claim 2, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above.
It is noted, however, that He did not specifically detail the aspects of
wherein, the determining whether a subject entity performs a preset operation on the target object entity, based on a storage status of the first data in a preset bit array, comprises: in response to that the first data is not stored in the preset bit array, determining that the subject entity does not perform the preset operation on the target object entity as recited in claim 2.
On the other hand, Khakpour achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
wherein, the determining whether a subject entity performs a preset operation on the target object entity, based on a storage status of the first data in a preset bit array, comprises: in response to that the first data is not stored in the preset bit array, determining that the subject entity does not perform the preset operation on the target object entity (Khakpour: paragraph 0060: disclose aching server operator can control what content is classified as long-tail content that should not be cached and what content is classified as "hot" content that should be cached).
As per claim 3, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 above. In addition, He disclose, in response to that the first data is not stored in the preset bit array, determining that the subject entity does not perform the preset operation on the target object entity, comprises: determining a dimension in the first data whose value is 1; and in response to that not all elements corresponding to the dimension in the preset bit array are 1, determining that the subject entity does not perform the preset operation on the target object entity (He: Page 20 & Table 3: disclose preset sorting rule ‘operation’, sort each of the determined eigenvalues 1 to obtain a sorted candidate eigenvalue array 1, for example, the obtained candidate eigenvalue array 1 is 11000101).
As per claim 4, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, He disclose, wherein the determining whether a subject entity performs a preset operation on the target object entity, based on a storage status of the first data in a preset bit array, comprises: in response to that the first data is stored in the preset bit array, determining a query identifier based on the first identifier and a subject identifier of the subject entity, and based on a storage status of the query identifier in a preset cache space, determining whether the subject entity performs the preset operation on the target object entity; wherein data in the preset cache space comprises a storage identifier which is generated based on a second identifier of an object entity and the subject identifier, in response to that the second data has been stored in the preset bit array (He: Page 6 & Line 17-18: disclose mapping the attribute identifier information to the data bits of the bit group of the Bloom filter, Examiner argues that this limitation is an algorithmic logic of manipulating the bit array based on a present condition).
As per claim 5, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 above. In addition, He disclose, in response to that the query identifier is not stored in a preset cache space, determining whether the subject entity performs the preset operation on the target object entity based on a storage status of the query identifier in a preset source storage space; wherein data in the preset source storage space comprises, in response to the subject entity performing the preset operation on an object entity, a storage identifier generated based on the second identifier of the object entity and the subject identifier (He: Page 20 & Table 3: disclose preset sorting rule ‘operation’, sort each of the determined eigenvalues 1 to obtain a sorted candidate eigenvalue array 1, for example, the obtained candidate eigenvalue array 1 is 11000101. Examiner argues that this limitation is an algorithmic logic of manipulating the bit array based on a present condition).
As per claim 6, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, He disclose, wherein the method further comprises: acquiring a first build time of the target object entity; the processing the first identifier through a preset function in a preset Bloom filter, comprises: in response to that a difference between the first build time and an acquisition time of acquiring the target object entity is less than or equal to a first preset value, processing the first identifier through the preset function; wherein the data in the preset bit array further comprises: the second data which is obtained by processing the second identifier of an object entity through the preset function, in response to that the subject entity performs the preset operation on the object entity and a difference between a second build time of the object entity and an operation time when the subject entity performs the preset operation on the object entity is less than or equal to the first preset value (He: Page 6 & Line 17-18: disclose mapping the attribute identifier information to the data bits of the bit group of the Bloom filter, Examiner argues that this limitation is an algorithmic logic of manipulating the bit array based on a present condition).
As per claim 7, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 1 and 6 above. In addition, He disclose, in response to that the difference between the first build time and the acquisition time is greater than the first preset value, determining a query identifier based on the first identifier and the subject identifier of the subject entity, and determining whether the subject entity performs the preset operation on the target object entity based on a storage status of the query identifier in a preset cache space; wherein, data in the preset cache space comprises: a storage identifier which is generated based on a second identifier of an object entity and the subject identifier, in response to that the subject entity performs the preset operation on the object entity and a difference between the second build time of the object entity and the operation time is greater than the first preset value (He: Page 6 & Line 17-18: disclose mapping the attribute identifier information to the data bits of the bit group of the Bloom filter and Page 6 Lines 5-7: disclose fuzzy query rule to determine the attribute identification information, Examiner argues that this limitation is an algorithmic logic of manipulating the bit array based on a present condition).
As per claim 8, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, He disclose, in response to that a fill ratio of the preset bit array is greater than a second preset value, determining a current layer number of the preset bit array; determining an actual resizing space of a next-layer array of the preset bit array, based on a preset resizing space corresponding to the current layer number and a current available space of the subject entity; and building the next-layer array according to the actual resizing space for storing the second data (He: Page 6 & Line 17-18: disclose mapping the attribute identifier information to the data bits of the bit group of the Bloom filter, Examiner argues that this limitation is an algorithmic logic of manipulating the bit array based on a present condition).
As per claim 9, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 1 and 8 above. In addition, He disclose, after determining the actual resizing space of the next-layer array of the preset bit array, in response to that the actual resizing space does not meet a space required for current writing of the second data, acquiring a previous rebuild time of the preset bit array; in response to that a difference between the rebuild time and the current time is greater than or equal to a third preset value, rebuilding the preset bit array (He: Page 6 & Line 17-18: disclose mapping the attribute identifier information to the data bits of the bit group of the Bloom filter, Examiner argues that this limitation is an algorithmic logic of manipulating the bit array based on a present condition).
As per claim 10, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, He disclose, in response to the subject entity performing the preset operation on the object entity, processing the second identifier of the object entity through the preset function of the Bloom filter corresponding to the preset operation to obtain the second data (He: Page 6 & Line 17-18: disclose mapping the attribute identifier information to the data bits of the bit group of the Bloom filter, Examiner argues that this limitation is an algorithmic logic of manipulating the bit array based on a present condition).
As per claim 11, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, He disclose, wherein, the subject entity comprises an account entity, the object entity comprises an account entity or a content entity, and the preset operation comprises at least one of the following: like, dislike, forward, comment, and value attribute entity transfer (He: Page 6 & Line 17-18: disclose mapping the attribute identifier information to the data bits of the bit group of the Bloom filter, Examiner argues that this limitation is an algorithmic logic of manipulating the bit array based on a present condition).
As per claim 13, He disclose, An electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; a storage device for storing one or more programs; wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement the data processing method of any one of wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (He: Page 1 Line 1: disclose electronic device) to implement: remaining limitations in this claim 13 are similar to the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, examiner rejects these remaining limitations under the same rationale as limitations rejected under claim 1.
As per claim 14, He disclose, A non-transitory storage medium comprising computer executable instructions, which, when executed by processor, causes the processor to implement (He: Page 1 Line 1: disclose storage medium): remaining limitations in this claim 14 are similar to the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, examiner rejects these remaining limitations under the same rationale as limitations rejected under claim 1.
As per claim 9, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 2. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 9 limitations under the same rationale as claim 2.
As per claim 10, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 3. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 10 limitations under the same rationale as claim 3.
As per claim 11, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 4. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 11 limitations under the same rationale as claim 4.
As per claim 12, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 5. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 12 limitations under the same rationale as claim 5.
As per claim 13, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 6. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 13 limitations under the same rationale as claim 6.
As per claim 14, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 7. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 14 limitations under the same rationale as claim 7.
As per claim 15, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 2. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 15 limitations under the same rationale as claim 2.
As per claim 16, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 4. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 16 limitations under the same rationale as claim 4.
As per claim 17, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 6. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 17 limitations under the same rationale as claim 6.
As per claim 18, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 8. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 18 limitations under the same rationale as claim 8.
As per claim 19, limitations of this claim are similar to claims 2 & 4. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 19 limitations under the same rationale as claims 2 & 4.
As per claim 20, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 6. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 20 limitations under the same rationale as claim 6.
As per claim 21, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 8. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 21 limitations under the same rationale as claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pat. US 8,849,838 B2 disclose “Bloom filter for storing file access history”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI whose telephone number is (571)270-3836. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F. 8am - 4pm, EST.
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, Ann J Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. 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.
/PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
