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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the cardinality" in line 15 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3 fail to resolve the deficiencies of claim 1 and are therefore also rejected.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "wherein the system memory statistics and records cardinality data of a filtering condition column" and "the processor compares the recorded statistic cardinality data with a predetermined threshold value to determine a data filtering and search method." In lines 7-10 of claim 4. It is unclear what is meant by the phrase "statistics and records cardinality data;" it appears the term "statistics" is being used improperly. Secondly, the term "the recorded statistic cardinality data" lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the cardinality" in line 17 of claim 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5-6 fail to resolve the deficiencies of claim 1 and are therefore also rejected.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 recite(s)
“statistically processing and recording cardinality data of a filtering condition column; and” which falls within the mathematical concepts and mental process groupings of abstract ideas because the cardinality limitations are directed to mathematical calculations, mathematical relationships, and evaluation.
“comparing the recorded statistic cardinality data with a predetermined threshold value to determine a data filtering and search method,” which falls within the mental process of grouping abstract ideas because the comparing limitations are directed to an evaluation.
“wherein the determination is made such that, when the cardinality data is higher than the predetermined threshold value, general data filtering and a k-nearest neighbor (KNN) search for a result thereof are performed, and” which falls within the mental process of grouping abstract ideas because the determination limitations are directed to an evaluation.
“the determination is made such that, when the cardinality data is lower than the predetermined threshold value, a search for neighboring nodes that do not satisfy a filtering condition is not performed during the search, and the determination is made such that a search is performed by modifying a search algorithm to expand a search space to a multiple of an inverse value of the cardinality or a filter combination probability.” which falls within the mental process of grouping abstract ideas because the determination limitations are directed to an evaluation. (step 2a prong 1)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements in the claim that are indicative of integration into a practical application. (step 2a prong 2)
The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, there are no additional elements. (step 2b)
Claim 1 is therefore ineligible.
It is advised to (1) provide an additional element in the claim that does not fall within the grouping of abstract ideas and that it reflects the improvement in technology and (2) cite where the technical explanation as to how to implement the invention in the specification such that it pertains to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology/technical field.
Claim 2 is directed when the cardinality data is lower than the predetermined threshold, searching for a nearest neighbor using a hierarchical navigable small world algorithm and expanding a search space in a greedy search process which falls within the mental process of grouping abstract ideas because the limitations are directed to an evaluation.
Claim 3 is directed to a predetermined threshold value being determined which falls within the mental process of grouping abstract ideas because the limitations are directed to an evaluation.
Claim(s) 4 recite(s)
“system memory statistics and records cardinality data of a filtering condition column; and” which falls within the mathematical concepts and mental process groupings of abstract ideas because the cardinality limitations are directed to mathematical calculations, mathematical relationships, and evaluation.
“compares the recorded statistic cardinality data with a predetermined threshold value to determine a data filtering and search method,” which falls within the mental process of grouping abstract ideas because the comparing limitations are directed to an evaluation.
“the determination is made such that, when the cardinality data is higher than the predetermined threshold value, general data filtering and a k-nearest neighbor (KNN) search for a result thereof are performed, and” which falls within the mental process of grouping abstract ideas because the determination limitations are directed to an evaluation.
“the determination is made such that, when the cardinality data is lower than the predetermined threshold value, a search for neighboring nodes that do not satisfy the filtering condition is not performed during the search, and a search is performed by modifying a search algorithm to expand a search space to a multiple of an inverse value of the cardinality or a filter combination probability.” which falls within the mental process of grouping abstract ideas because the determination limitations are directed to an evaluation. (step 2a prong 1)
The additional elements are: “at least one processor; and a system memory that executes an operating system and a software application” which are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see mpep 2106.05(f). (step 2a prong 2)
The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see mpep 2106.05(f). (step 2b)
Claim 4 is therefore ineligible.
It is advised to (1) provide an additional element in the claim that does not fall within the grouping of abstract ideas and that it reflects the improvement in technology and (2) cite where the technical explanation as to how to implement the invention in the specification such that it pertains to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology/technical field.
Claim 5 is directed when the cardinality data is lower than the predetermined threshold, searching for a nearest neighbor using a hierarchical navigable small world algorithm and expanding a search space in a greedy search process which falls within the mental process of grouping abstract ideas because the limitations are directed to an evaluation.
Claim 6 is directed to a predetermined threshold value being determined which falls within the mental process of grouping abstract ideas because the limitations are directed to an evaluation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The closest prior art found is currently U.S. 20220374432 by Akerib et. al.
Akerib appears to at best disclose the following with regard to the independent claims, in particular claim 1:
A method of searching for a nearest neighbor in a cardinality-based vector database, comprising:
“statistically processing and recording cardinality data of a filtering condition column; and”[ statistically processing and recording (0035, calculated and stored) cardinality data (0035, full dimension vectors) of a filtering condition column (fig. 6 11 full dimension query vector)]
“comparing the recorded statistic cardinality data with a predetermined threshold value to determine a data filtering and search method,”[ comparing the recorded statistic cardinality data (0035, full dimension vectors) with a predetermined threshold value (0042, until the number of vectors available to host is sufficient) to determine a data filtering and search method (0042, rerank operation; 0043 knn search algorithm to find the final k nearest neighbors)]
“wherein the determination is made such that, when the cardinality data is higher than the predetermined threshold value, general data filtering and a k-nearest neighbor (KNN) search for a result thereof are performed, and”[ wherein the determination is made such that, when the cardinality data (0035, full dimension vector) is higher than the predetermined threshold value (0042, number of vectors available to host is sufficient), general data filtering and a k-nearest neighbor (KNN) search for a result thereof are performed (0043, knn search algorithm (knn search) to find the final k nearest neighbors (general data filtering))]
“the determination is made such that, when the cardinality data is lower than the predetermined threshold value, a search for neighboring nodes that do not satisfy a filtering condition is not performed during the search, and the determination is made such that a search is performed by modifying a search algorithm to expand a search space to a multiple of an inverse value of the cardinality or a filter combination probability.”[ the determination is made such that, when the cardinality data (0035, full dimension vector) is lower than the predetermined threshold value (0042, until the number of vectors available to host is sufficient; insufficient is lower), a search for neighboring nodes (fig. 6 620; 0044, expand relativeily small number of vectors by using knn graph 300 to bring each vector its w neighbors; 0041, expand the number of neighbor; expanding the number of neighbors using knn graph does not utilize filter condition apu) that do not satisfy a filtering condition (fig. 6 610, using apu; apu is filter condition for reduced dimension search) is not performed during the search (fig. 6), and the determination is made such that a search is performed by modifying a search algorithm to expand a search space(expand the relativeily small number of vectors by using knn to bring for each vector its w neighbors) to
Accordingly, Akerib does not fairly disclose
“the determination is made such that, when the cardinality data is lower than the predetermined threshold value, a search for neighboring nodes that do not satisfy a filtering condition is not performed during the search, and the determination is made such that a search is performed by modifying a search algorithm to expand a search space to a multiple of an inverse value of the cardinality or a filter combination probability”
Claim 4 recites similar limitations as that of claim 1. Akerib further discloses processor and memory in at least 0018 where a memory and processor are disclosed in an apu and host.
Other references of note:
U.S. 20210406321 by Li in particular discloses submission of a query creating vectors from the query using a deep learning model, taking a data set and using a deep learning model to create vectors, comparing the vectors of the query to a vector index for vectors of the data set in order to determine the closest vectors, see fig. 1 and paragraph 0024. Fig. 2 describes addition and deletion of content providing the top k nearest neighbors for a node.
WO2020060605 indicates it provides for a user sending an enquiry request to a search engine. The system takes in the enquiry request to form an enquiry vector and uses a search engine to conduct a vector based approximate matching for a document vector approximate to the enquiry vector. The system further provides for additional searching actions to take place based on the current state, such as terminating a search according to the mapping relationship between the states and actions. Providing the additional searching actions is for acquiring better search results. See 0025-0028.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-730pm Eastern.
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, 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 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.
/MICHAEL PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights