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 .
Detailed Action
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. With respect to claim 11, Examiner found support for an algorithm describing the recited key-value storage engine, enhanced iterator initialization module, permutation engine, and output module performing the recited actions in specification paragraphs 0075-0076 and figure 3. Examiner notes specification paragraph 0075 states “according to an embodiment one or more processors are programmed to act as at least one of the key-value storage engine, the enhanced iterator initialization module, the permutation engine, and the like.”
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because each of the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder “configured to” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a key-value storage engine configured to organize data as key-value pairs, where each key is stored in memory and points to a corresponding value stored in a storage unit; an enhanced iterator initialization module configured to accept a database name, a start key, a sampling ratio parameter that determines a proportion of data to be scanned from an entire database, and a seed parameter that serves as a randomization seed; a permutation engine configured to execute a random permutation over a subset of the dataset based on the sampling ratio and seed parameters; and an output module configured to return values based on the randomized permutation using iterator operations, wherein sampling operations are performed directly within the key-value storage engine without requiring intermediate data transfers, each recited in claim 11.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 17 are objected to because of the following informality: the third limitation in each claim recites “a subset of the dataset” which lacks antecedent basis.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner notes specification paragraph 0075 states “according to an embodiment one or more processors are programmed to act as at least one of the key-value storage engine, the enhanced iterator initialization module, the permutation engine, and the like,” which means the support in the specification does not provide hardware structure for the recited output module as required per 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Each limitation in claim 11invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Examiner notes specification paragraph 0075 states “according to an embodiment one or more processors are programmed to act as at least one of the key-value storage engine, the enhanced iterator initialization module, the permutation engine, and the like,” which does not disclose corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the output module recited in the last limitation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 11, and 17 each recites implementing an enhanced iterator initialization function that accepts a database name, a start key, a sampling ratio parameter that determines a proportion of data to be scanned from an entire database, and a seed parameter that serves as a randomization seed; and executing a random permutation over a subset of the dataset based on the sampling ratio and seed parameters. Implementing a function and executing a random permutation are each executing operations and recited highly generally and use a computer as a tool and are thus mental processes accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Each claim recites additional elements of organizing data as key-value pairs within the key-value storage engine, where each key is stored in memory and points to a corresponding value stored in a storage unit, which is a storing step and insignificant extra-solution activity; and returning values based on the randomized permutation using iterator operations, thereby performing sampling operations directly within the key-value storage engine without requiring intermediate data transfers, which is an output step and also insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 11 recites software modules and claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which are generic components of a computer. Examiner notes specification paragraphs 0004 states “conventional approaches [for AI training] often require data to be moved between different storage systems and processing components, creating potential bottlenecks in the training pipeline, [emphasis added]“ and paragraph 0008 states “traditional storage and preprocessing architectures may struggle to accommodate these diverse requirements” and paragraph 0009 states “conventional data processing pipelines may not provide the necessary interfaces or optimization for direct integration with specialized AI hardware.” Various techniques of how the invention addresses these drawbacks are discussed in the specification beginning in paragraph 0020, many of which are not recited in the claims. Also, the claim steps do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taken as a whole, the storing step is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II, and the output step is recited broadly and amounts to receiving data across a network or communication path per specification paragraphs 0049 and 0076-0082 and figure 3, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The software modules and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are still generic components of a computer. Thus the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Claims 2, 12, and 18 each recites wherein the key-value storage engine comprises an in-memory hash table , where each entry points to a location of an entry value on storage media, and an in-memory hash table storing data is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claims 3 and 13 each recites wherein the hash table comprises N slots, which accommodate M entries, where distribution of entries across slots adheres to balls and bins principles, and a hash table storing data is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claims 4 and 14 each recites wherein executing the random permutation comprises employing an invertible hash function that can be generated differently for each seed, and executing a function is recited highly generally and uses a computer as a tool and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 5, 15, and 19 each recites wherein the invertible hash function utilizes operations selected from the group consisting of multiplication by an odd constant, addition of a constant, and bit rotation operations, and executing a function is recited highly generally and uses a computer as a tool and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper.
Claim 6 recites wherein executing the random permutation comprises defining a random permutation over n+1 bits where 1 represents a maximum number of collisions within a slot, and executing the random permutation is recited highly generally and uses a computer as a tool and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 7 and 20 each recites wherein returning values comprises emitting key-value pairs based on content of chosen slots using a sequential algorithm that iterates over the hash table without requiring additional memory for storing additional data structures, and emitting key-value pairs is recited broadly and amounts to receiving data across a network or communication path per specification paragraphs 0049 and 0076-0082 and figure 3, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claims 8 and 16 recites wherein the method is executed on a dedicated processor external to a system CPU, and a dedicated processor is a generic component of a computer. Claims 9 and 16 each recites wherein the dedicated processor is selected from the group consisting of an ASIC and an FPGA, and a dedicated processor is a generic component of a computer.
Relevant Prior Art
During his search for prior art, Examiner found the following references to be relevant to Applicant's claimed invention. Each reference is listed on the Notice of References form included in this office action:
Shi et al (US 20250371439) teaches training based on federated learning and a sample subset and intersection identifier from a first trainer to a second trainer, does not teach an enhanced iterator function taking inputs of a start key and a randomization seed or executing a random permutation over the subset (paragraphs 0006-0009, 0059-0070, 0092, 0094 figures 3, 4); and
Lam et al (US 12,205,395) teaches training a machine learning model to extract key-value data from a document, does not teach an enhanced iterator function taking inputs of a start key and a randomization seed or executing a random permutation over the subset (column 2 lines 7-18, columns 17-18 lines 30-542 figure 6).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE M MOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-1718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571 270-5626. 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.
/BRUCE M MOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 5/2/26
Prosecution Insights