DETAILED ACTION
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 Objections
Claims 4-8, 12, 15-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
"wherein determining" should be "wherein the determining" [Claims 4, 5, 12, 15, 16, lines 1, 10, 4, 2, 12];
"wherein selecting" should be "wherein the selecting" [Claims 6, 7, 17, lines 3, 1, 4];
"wherein performing" should be "wherein the performing" [Claims 8, 18, lines 1, 1].
Appropriate correction is required. Further, in an effort to practice compact prosecution, each of these limitations has been interpreted similarly as in the provided recommendation for each limitation, above.
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 1-7, 10-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 13 similarly recite receiving a vector query that includes a query vector and that is associated with an accuracy value; in response to receiving the vector query: determining, based on the accuracy value and a plurality of past accuracy scores, a value for a vector search parameter; performing a search of a vector index based on the query vector and the value for the vector search parameter; generating a set of results based on the search of the vector index; wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices.
The limitations of determining, based on the accuracy value and a plurality of past accuracy scores, a value for a vector search parameter; performing a search of a vector index based on the query vector and the value for the vector search parameter; generating a set of results based on the search of the vector index, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes but from the recitation of implementing them on generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitations pertaining to “determining, “performing”, and “generating” in the context of this claim encompass the user judging a value, analyzing (searching) a vector index, and judging a result based on the analyzing of the vector index. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1, 13 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of – One or more non-transitory storage media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more computing devices, cause: receiving a vector query that includes a query vector and that is associated with an accuracy value; in response to receiving the vector query. The media and computing devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The additional elements pertaining to “receiving” represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements pertaining to “receiving” represent insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these limitations, both individually and in combination, fail to amount to an inventive concept because they merely append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, and thus, do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B). Accordingly, claims 1, 13 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-12, 14-20 depend on claims 1, 13 and include all the limitations of these claims. Therefore, these claims are directed to the same abstract idea and the analysis must proceed to (Step 2A, Prong 2).
Claims 2, 14 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to the accuracy value. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and further limit the insignificant extra-solution activity as recited in the independent claims; however, they do not preclude this step from being insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites additional limitations pertaining to the value for the vector search parameter. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent the mental process steps of determining as recited in the independent claim. However, this limitation does not preclude the step from being performed mentally. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Claims 4, 15 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to the vector query and the determining. The additional element pertaining to the “determining” based on the top-k value represents further mental process steps of judging a value based on the top-k value. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitations pertaining to the vector query, which is received, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps and/or well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 5, 16 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to selecting vectors, performing a vector search, generating a particular set of results, generating an accuracy score, storing an association, including the association in a set, and determining the value. The additional elements pertaining to selecting vectors, performing a vector search, generating a particular set of results, generating an accuracy score, including the association in a set, and determining the value represent further mental process steps of comprising analysis and judgments. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitations pertaining to “storing” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps and/or well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 6, 17 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to storing a plurality of query vectors, and the subset of vectors. The additional element pertaining to “selecting” represents further mental process steps of judging the vectors and the subset of vectors. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitations pertaining to “storing” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps and/or well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites additional limitations pertaining to selecting the plurality of vectors. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging a random sampling of vectors. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Claims 10, 20 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to the vector query. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent the insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception recited in the independent claims. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites additional limitations pertaining to the vector index and search parameter. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12 recites additional limitations pertaining to generating a machine learning model used for the determining. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging the value for the search parameter. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, the limitation pertaining to “inputting” is recited as being performed using generic computing components at a high level of generality. In the limitation pertaining to “inputting” and “which outputs”, computing components are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of (inputting/outputting data). See MPEP 2106.05(f). In the limitation pertaining to “determining”, the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The judicial exception of “determining” is performed by “inputting the accuracy value into the machine-learned model”. The machine-learning model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the trained machine learning model functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “outputs the value” and do not include any details about how the determining of the value is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of “inputting the accuracy value into the machine-learned model” in the limitations also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “inputting the accuracy value into the machine-learned model” limits the identified judicial exception of “determining”, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine-learning models) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. The additional element of “inputting the accuracy value into the machine-learned model” in is, at best, mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additional elements inputting and outputting are also insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they are insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Xie (US 2025/0245006) discloses vector dataset index parameter determination;
Akerib (US 2022/0374432) discloses associative graph search;
Lala (US 2025/0278420) discloses natural language understanding based domain determination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P BARTLETT whose telephone number is (469)295-9085. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 11:30-8:30, F 11-3.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached on 571-272-9782. 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.
/WILLIAM P BARTLETT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights