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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Priority
It is acknowledged that the pending application claims priority to non-provisional application 18/137944 filed on 21 April 2023. Priority date of 21 April 2023 is given.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10 November 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12488027. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Instant application:
Pat. No.: 12488027
1. A method for creating an index for item retrieval, comprising:
receiving an input item, the input item having text content and non-text content;
mapping, using a first input-embedding subsystem of an input-embedding system, the text content to a first input embedding;
mapping, using a second input-embedding subsystem of the input-embedding system, the non-text content to a second input embedding,
wherein the first input-embedding subsystem and the second input-embedding subsystem include a first machine-trained model and a second machine-trained model, respectively;
assembling the first input embedding and the second input embedding into an input-system embedding;
mapping, using a language-based embedding-mapping system, the input-system embedding to a target item embedding that represents a target concept of the input item; and
storing the target item embedding in the index,
wherein plural expressions of the target concept, that have been generated based on input items having different content types and different combinations of content types map to the same target item embedding,
wherein the input-embedding system includes weights that have been iteratively updated by a training system in a phase of a training operation, and
wherein the language-based embedding-mapping system includes language model weights that have been held fixed and not updated during the phase of the training operation
.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the non-text content includes any of image content, audio content, or video content.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the input item includes another type of content that is different from the text content and the non-text content.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the assembling comprises concatenating the first input embedding and second input embedding, to produce the input-system embedding.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein, in the phase of the training, weights of the second machine-trained model of the second input-embedding subsystem have been iteratively updated, and weights of the first machine-trained model of the first input-embedding subsystem have been held fixed and are not updated.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the language-based embedding-mapping system includes a language-based encoding machine-trained model and an embedding conversion machine-trained model, and wherein the language-based embedding-mapping system operates by: mapping, using the language-based encoding machine-trained model, the input-system embedding to a first-stage embedding; and mapping, using the embedding conversion machine-trained model, the first-stage embedding to the target item embedding, in a vector space of the index, wherein the embedding conversion machine-trained model has weights that have been iteratively updated while weights of the language-based encoding machine-trained model have been held fixed and not updated.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the weights of the embedding conversion machine-trained model have been iteratively updated in a phase of training after the phase of training in which the weights of the input-embedding system have been iteratively updated.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the input-embedding system includes a third input-embedding subsystem that is added to the input-embedding system after the first input-embedding subsystem and the second input-embedding subsystem, and wherein the third input-embedding subsystem has weights that have been iteratively produced while the weights of the first input-embedding subsystem, the second input-embedding subsystem, and the language-based embedding-mapping system have been held fixed.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising: assessing a processing capability of an execution platform that performs the method; and setting an amount of processing operations to be performed by the language-based embedding-mapping system based on the processing capability.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the processing capability depends, at least in part, on hardware capabilities of the execution platform.
11. The method of claim 9, wherein the processing capability depends on a current operational state of the execution platform.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein current operational state depends on any one or more of: a battery level of the execution platform; an indication of whether the execution platform is connected to a constant source of power; a current load being processed by the execution platform; tasks that the execution platform is scheduled to perform; or priority levels assigned to tasks that the execution platform is currently performing or is scheduled to perform.
13. The method of claim 9, wherein the language-based embedding-mapping system includes a language model that includes a series of processing blocks, and wherein the setting includes setting how many of the processing blocks are to be invoked in the course of generating the target item embedding.
Claims 14-20 are similar to claims 1-2, 5-6 and 9-11.
1. A method for creating an index for item retrieval, comprising:
receiving an input item, the input item having first content provided by a first input mode and second content provided by a second input mode, the second input mode differing from the first input mode;
mapping, using an input-embedding system, the first content and the second content to an input-system embedding, wherein the input-embedding system has a plurality of input-embedding subsystems having respective machine-trained models for processing input items having different types of content provided by different respective input modes, the different types of content including text content and non-text content, and wherein the input-embedding system has weights iteratively produced by a training system, after a first phase of training, in a second phase of training;
mapping, using a language-based embedding-mapping system, the input-system embedding to a particular target item embedding that represents the input item, wherein the language-based embedding-mapping system has language model weights that are iteratively produced in the first phase of training before the second phase of training, wherein the second phase of training that iteratively produces the weights of the input-embedding system includes mapping performed by the language-based embedding-mapping system, and wherein the language model weights iteratively produced in the first phase of training are held fixed during the second phase of training; and
storing the particular target item embedding in the index,
wherein the input-embedding system and the language-based embedding-mapping system comprise a language-based encoder system having a series of processing blocks, and wherein the method further comprises: at a first time, assessing that an execution platform has a first processing capability; instructing the language-based encoder system to generate a provisional target item embedding using a first number of processing blocks in the series of processing blocks that is less than all of the processing blocks in the series of processing blocks; storing the provisional target item embedding; at a second time after the first time, assessing that the execution platform has a second processing capability that is greater than the first processing capability; and
instructing the language-based encoder system to continue processing the provisional target item embedding using remaining blocks in the series of processing blocks that were not included in the first number of processing blocks, to produce a final target item embedding, wherein the particular item embedding is the provisional target embedding or the final target item embedding.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the particular target item embedding in the index represents a particular target concept, and wherein plural expressions of the target concept, that have been generated using the different input modes and different combinations of the input modes, map to the same particular target item embedding.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the first input mode and the second input mode are any two different input modes selected from a text input mode, an image input mode, an audio input mode, or a video input mode.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of input-embedding subsystems of the input-embedding system include a first input-embedding subsystem and a second input-embedding subsystem, wherein the first input-embedding subsystem includes weights that are iteratively produced by the training system during the second phase of training, and wherein the method includes: mapping, using the first input-embedding subsystem, the first content to a first input embedding; and mapping, using the second input-embedding subsystem, the second content to a second input embedding, wherein the input-system embedding includes the first input embedding and the second input embedding.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the language-based embedding-mapping system operates by: mapping, using a language-based encoding operation, the input-system embedding to a first-stage embedding; and mapping, using an embedding conversion operation, the first-stage embedding to the particular target item embedding, in a vector space of the index, wherein the embedding conversion operation uses weights that are iteratively produced by the training system during a third phase of training after the second phase of training, and the language-based encoding operation uses language model weights that are iteratively produced in the first phase of training and are held fixed during the third stage of training.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising, in a retrieval operation: receiving an input query; mapping the input query to a query embedding using the input-embedding system and the language-based embedding-mapping system; and finding a candidate set of target item embeddings in the index that match the query embedding, and further comprising, in a language-based filtering operation: receiving prompt information that describes a filtering task; and mapping, in a language-based encoding operation, the prompt information, the query embedding, and the candidate set of target item embeddings to output results, the output results identifying one or more target item embeddings of the candidate set of target item embeddings that are most likely to match the input query, wherein the language-based encoding operation uses language model weights that are iteratively produced in the first phase of training.
7. The method of claim 6, further comprising: mapping, in a preliminary mapping operation prior to the language-based encoding operation, the candidate set of target item embeddings to a transformed set of target item embeddings in a vector space of the language-based encoding operation, wherein the preliminary mapping operation uses weights that are iteratively produced during a subsequent phase of training after the second phase of training, and wherein the language model weights of the language-based encoding operation are held fixed during the subsequent phase of training.
8. The method of claim 6, wherein the input-embedding system and the language-based embedding-mapping system comprise a language-based encoder system, and wherein the language-based encoder system and/or the language-based filtering operation use transformer-based machine-trained logic.
Claims 9-18 are similar to claims 1-8.
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites, “A method for creating an index for item retrieval, comprising:
receiving an input item, the input item having text content and non-text content;
mapping, using a first input-embedding subsystem of an input-embedding system, the text content to a first input embedding;
mapping, using a second input-embedding subsystem of the input-embedding system, the non-text content to a second input embedding, wherein the first input-embedding subsystem and the second input-embedding subsystem include a first machine-trained model and a second machine-trained model, respectively;
assembling the first input embedding and the second input embedding into an input-system embedding;
mapping, using a language-based embedding-mapping system, the input-system embedding to a target item embedding that represents a target concept of the input item; and
storing the target item embedding in the index, wherein plural expressions of the target concept, that have been generated based on input items having different content types and different combinations of content types map to the same target item embedding, wherein the input-embedding system includes weights that have been iteratively updated by a training system in a phase of a training operation, and wherein the language-based embedding-mapping system includes language model weights that have been held fixed and not updated during the phase of the training operation.”
(Step 1) The claim recites “A method for creating an index for item retrieval, comprising…” as drafted, the claimed method is a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
(Step 2A-Prong One) The limitations of “mapping, using a first input-embedding subsystem of an input-embedding system, the text content to a first input embedding;
mapping, using a second input-embedding subsystem of the input-embedding system, the non-text content to a second input embedding, wherein the first input-embedding subsystem and the second input-embedding subsystem include a first machine-trained model and a second machine-trained model, respectively;
assembling the first input embedding and the second input embedding into an input-system embedding;
mapping, using a language-based embedding-mapping system, the input-system embedding to a target item embedding that represents a target concept of the input item,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “input-embedding subsystem,” “input-embedding system,” “machine-trained model” and “language-based embedding-mapping system,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “input-embedding subsystem,” “input-embedding system,” “machine-trained model” language, “mapping,” “mapping,” “assembling” and “mapping” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually mapping the text content to a first input embedding;
mapping the non-text content to a second input embedding, wherein the first input-embedding subsystem and the second input-embedding subsystem include a first machine-trained model and a second machine-trained model, respectively;
assembling the first input embedding and the second input embedding into an input-system embedding;
mapping the input-system embedding to a target item embedding that represents a target concept of the input item in his mind.
If claim limitations, 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.
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional elements – using “input-embedding subsystem,” “input-embedding system,” “machine-trained model” and “language-based embedding-mapping system” to perform the “receiving,” “mapping,” “mapping,” “assembling,” “mapping” and “storing” steps. The “input-embedding subsystem,” “input-embedding system,” “machine-trained model” and “language-based embedding-mapping system” in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Further, the claim recites additional elements – “…receiving an input item, the input item having text content and non-text content;” and “storing the target item embedding in the index…,” where merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of creating index in a computer environment (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”) which is Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing index creating process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Further, the claim recites additional element – “receiving an input item, the input item having text content and non-text content;” and “storing the target item embedding in the index…” which is Mere Data Gathering and Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulate and is in form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP: 2105.05 (g), “iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies,” “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,” and “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A”).
(Step 2B) 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 of using “input-embedding subsystem,” “input-embedding system,” “machine-trained model” and “language-based embedding-mapping system” to perform “receiving,” “mapping,” “mapping,” “assembling,” “mapping” and “storing” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The other additional elements, “receiving” and “storing” steps are Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception in conjunction with the abstract idea. They merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of creating index in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”).
Further, the other additional limitation “receiving” and “storing” is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “receiving” and “storing” only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec,” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.” “v. Analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants, Genetic Techs,” and “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).”
Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
For claim 2, it recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the non-text content includes any of image content, audio content, or video content.” which is merely data (e.g. contents) and does not meet any of the categories (MPEP: 2106.03, “Thus, the Federal Circuit has held that a product claim to an intangible collection of information, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1720 (claimed "device profile" comprising two sets of data did not meet any of the categories because it was neither a process nor a tangible product).”).
For the above reason, the limitation does not change the result of the analysis from the independent claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For claim 3, it recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the input item includes another type of content that is different from the text content and the non-text content.” which is merely data (e.g. contents) and does not meet any of the categories (MPEP: 2106.03, “Thus, the Federal Circuit has held that a product claim to an intangible collection of information, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1720 (claimed "device profile" comprising two sets of data did not meet any of the categories because it was neither a process nor a tangible product).”).
For the above reason, the limitation does not change the result of the analysis from the independent claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For claim 4, it recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the assembling comprises concatenating the first input embedding and second input embedding, to produce the input-system embedding.”
(Step 2A-Prong One) The limitations of “the assembling comprises concatenating the first input embedding and second input embedding, to produce the input-system embedding,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “input-embedding subsystem,” “input-embedding system,” “machine-trained model” and “language-based embedding-mapping system,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “input-embedding subsystem,” “input-embedding system,” “machine-trained model” language, “assembling” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually assembling comprises concatenating the first input embedding and second input embedding, to produce the input-system embedding in his mind.
If claim limitations, 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.
(Step 2A-Prong Two) and (Step 2B)
No additional elements are provided in the claim, therefore there is still no practical application and the claim does not provide significantly more as per claim 1 analysis.
For claim 5, it recites “The method of claim 1, wherein, in the phase of the training, weights of the second machine-trained model of the second input-embedding subsystem have been iteratively updated, and weights of the first machine-trained model of the first input-embedding subsystem have been held fixed and are not updated.”
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional elements – using “input-embedding subsystem,” “input-embedding system,” “machine-trained model” and “language-based embedding-mapping system” to perform the “updated” step. The “input-embedding subsystem,” “input-embedding system,” “machine-trained model” and “language-based embedding-mapping system” in the step is recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Further, the claim recites additional element – “wherein, in the phase of the training, weights of the second machine-trained model of the second input-embedding subsystem have been iteratively updated, and weights of the first machine-trained model of the first input-embedding subsystem have been held fixed and are not updated…” which is Mere Data Gathering and Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulate and is in form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP: 2105.05 (g), “v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial…” and “vi. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. See also PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis).”
(Step 2B) 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 of using “input-embedding subsystem,” “input-embedding system,” “machine-trained model” and “language-based embedding-mapping system” to perform “updated” step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Further, the other additional limitation “updated” is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “updated” only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values);” “i. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood by any means, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC” “v. Analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants, Genetic Techs. Ltd., 818 F.3d at 1377; 118 USPQ2d at 1546” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.” “v. Analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants, Genetic Techs,” and “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).”
Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
For claim 6, it recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the language-based embedding-mapping system includes a language-based encoding machine-trained model and an embedding conversion machine-trained model, and wherein the language-based embedding-mapping system operates by:
mapping, using the language-based encoding machine-trained model, the input-system embedding to a first-stage embedding; and
mapping, using the embedding conversion machine-trained model, the first-stage embedding to the target item embedding, in a vector space of the index, wherein the embedding conversion machine-trained model has weights that have been iteratively updated while weights of the language-based encoding machine-trained model have been held fixed and not updated.
(Step 2A-Prong One) The limitations of “mapping, using the language-based encoding machine-trained model, the input-system embedding to a first-stage embedding; and
mapping, using the embedding conversion machine-trained model, the first-stage embedding to the target item embedding, in a vector space of the index, wherein the embedding conversion machine-trained model has weights that have been iteratively updated while weights of the language-based encoding machine-trained model have been held fixed and not updated,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “language-based encoding machine-trained model” and “embedding conversion machine-trained model,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “language-based encoding machine-trained model” and “embedding conversion machine-trained model” language, “mapping” and “mapping” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually “mapping the input-system embedding to a first-stage embedding; and mapping the first-stage embedding to the target item embedding, in a vector space of the index, wherein the embedding conversion machine-trained model has weights that have been iteratively updated while weights of the language-based encoding machine-trained model have been held fixed and not updated in his mind.
If claim limitations, 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.
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional elements – using “language-based encoding machine-trained model” and “embedding conversion machine-trained model” to perform the “mapping” and “mapping” steps. The “language-based encoding machine-trained model” and “embedding conversion machine-trained model” in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B) 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 of using “language-based encoding machine-trained model” and “embedding conversion machine-trained model” to perform “mapping” and “mapping” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
For claim 7, it recites “The method of claim 6, wherein the weights of the embedding conversion machine-trained model have been iteratively updated in a phase of training after the phase of training in which the weights of the input-embedding system have been iteratively updated.
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional elements – using “input-embedding subsystem,” “input-embedding system,” “machine-trained model” and “language-based embedding-mapping system” to perform the “wherein, in the phase of the training, weights of the second machine-trained model of the second input-embedding subsystem have been iteratively updated, and weights of the first machine-trained model of the first input-embedding subsystem have been held fixed and are not updated” step. The “input-embedding subsystem,” “input-embedding system,” “machine-trained model” and “language-based embedding-mapping system” in the step is recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Further, the claim recites additional element – “wherein the weights of the embedding conversion machine-trained model have been iteratively updated in a phase of training after the phase of training in which the weights of the input-embedding system have been iteratively updated…” which is Mere Data Gathering and Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulate and is in form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP: 2105.05 (g), “v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial…” and “vi. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. See also PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis).”
(Step 2B) 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 of using “input-embedding subsystem,” “input-embedding system,” “machine-trained model” and “language-based embedding-mapping system” to perform “wherein the weights of the embedding conversion machine-trained model have been iteratively updated in a phase of training after the phase of training in which the weights of the input-embedding system have been iteratively updated” step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Further, the other additional limitation “wherein the weights of the embedding conversion machine-trained model have been iteratively updated in a phase of training after the phase of training in which the weights of the input-embedding system have been iteratively updated” is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “wherein the weights of the embedding conversion machine-trained model have been iteratively updated in a phase of training after the phase of training in which the weights of the input-embedding system have been iteratively updated” only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values);” “i. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood by any means, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC” “v. Analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants, Genetic Techs. Ltd., 818 F.3d at 1377; 118 USPQ2d at 1546” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.” “v. Analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants, Genetic Techs,” and “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).”
Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
For claim 8, it recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the input-embedding system includes a third input-embedding subsystem that is added to the input-embedding system after the first input-embedding subsystem and the second input-embedding subsystem, and wherein the third input-embedding subsystem has weights that have been iteratively produced while the weights of the first input-embedding subsystem, the second input-embedding subsystem, and the language-based embedding-mapping system have been held fixed.”
(Step 2A-Prong One) The limitations of “wherein the third input-embedding subsystem has weights that have been iteratively produced while the weights of the first input-embedding subsystem, the second input-embedding subsystem, and the language-based embedding-mapping system have been held fixed,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “third input-embedding subsystem,” “first input-embedding subsystem,” “second input-embedding subsystem” and “language-based embedding-mapping system,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “third input-embedding subsystem,” “first input-embedding subsystem,” “second input-embedding subsystem” and “language-based embedding-mapping system” language, “produced” in the context of this claim encompasses the user “wherein the third input-embedding subsystem has weights that have been iteratively produced while the weights of the first input-embedding subsystem, the second input-embedding subsystem, and the language-based embedding-mapping system have been held fixed” in his mind.
If claim limitations, 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.
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional elements – using “third input-embedding subsystem,” “first input-embedding subsystem,” “second input-embedding subsystem” and “language-based embedding-mapping system” to perform the step. The “input-embedding subsystem,” “input-embedding system,” “machine-trained model” and “language-based embedding-mapping system” in the step is recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B) 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 of using “third input-embedding subsystem,” “first input-embedding subsystem,” “second input-embedding subsystem” and “language-based embedding-mapping system” to perform the step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
For claim 9, it recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising:
assessing a processing capability of an execution platform that performs the method; and
setting an amount of processing operations to be performed by the language-based embedding-mapping system based on the processing capability.”
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional elements – using “execution platform” to perform the “assessing” and “setting” steps. The “execution platform” in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Further, the claim recites additional elements – “…assessing a processing capability of an execution platform that performs the method…,” where merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of accessing in a computer environment (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”) which is Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform information retrieval. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Further, the claim recites additional element – “assessing a processing capability of an execution platform that performs the method…” and “setting an amount of processing operations to be performed by the language-based embedding-mapping system based on the processing capability” which are Mere Data Gathering and Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulate and is in form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP: 2105.05 (g), “iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies,”
“iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,” and “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A”).
(Step 2B) 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 of using “execution platform” to perform “assessing” and “setting” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The other additional elements, “assessing” steps are Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception in conjunction with the abstract idea. They merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of accessing in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”).
Further, the other additional limitation “assessing” and “setting” is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “receiving” and “storing” only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec,”
“ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”);” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.” “v. Analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants, Genetic Techs,” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).” “v. Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”
Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
For claim 10, it recites “The method of claim 9, wherein the processing capability depends, at least in part, on hardware capabilities of the execution platform.”
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional elements – using “execution platform” to perform the “wherein the processing capability depends, at least in part, on hardware capabilities of the execution platform” step. The “execution platform” in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Further, the claim recites additional elements – “…wherein the processing capability depends, at least in part, on hardware capabilities of the execution platform…,” where merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of accessing in a computer environment (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more…. Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.”) which is Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
(Step 2B) 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 of using “execution platform” to perform “assessing” and “setting” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The other additional elements, “wherein the processing capability depends, at least in part, on hardware capabilities of the execution platform” steps are Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception in conjunction with the abstract idea. They merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of processing in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more…Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept…”).
Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
For claim 11, it recites “The method of claim 9, wherein the processing capability depends on a current operational state of the execution platform.”
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional elements – using “execution platform” to perform the “the processing capability depends on a current operational state of the execution platform” step. The “execution platform” in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Further, the claim recites additional elements – “…the processing capability depends on a current operational state of the execution platform…,” where merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of accessing in a computer environment (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more…. Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.”) which is Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
(Step 2B) 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 of using “execution platform” to perform “assessing” and “setting” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The other additional elements, “the processing capability depends on a current operational state of the execution platform” steps are Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception in conjunction with the abstract idea. They merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of processing in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more…Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept…”).
Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
For claim 12, it recites “The method of claim 11, wherein current operational state depends on any one or more of: a battery level of the execution platform; an indication of whether the execution platform is connected to a constant source of power; a current load being processed by the execution platform; tasks that the execution platform is scheduled to perform; or priority levels assigned to tasks that the execution platform is currently performing or is scheduled to perform.”
(Step 2A-Prong One) The limitations of “current operational state depends on any one or more of: a battery level of the execution platform; an indication of whether the execution platform is connected to a constant source of power; a current load being processed by the execution platform; tasks that the execution platform is scheduled to perform; or priority levels assigned to tasks that the execution platform is currently performing or is scheduled to perform,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the user manually current operational state depends on any one or more of: a battery level of the execution platform; an indication of whether the execution platform is connected to a constant source of power; a current load being processed by the execution platform; tasks that the execution platform is scheduled to perform; or priority levels assigned to tasks that the execution platform is currently performing or is scheduled to perform in his mind.
If claim limitations, 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.
(Step 2A-Prong Two) and (Step 2B)
No additional elements are provided in the claim, therefore there is still no practical application and the claim does not provide significantly more as per claim 1 analysis.
For claim 13, it recites “The method of claim 9, wherein the language-based embedding-mapping system includes a language model that includes a series of processing blocks, and wherein the setting includes setting how many of the processing blocks are to be invoked in the course of generating the target item embedding.
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional elements – using “language model” to perform the “a language model that includes a series of processing blocks, and wherein the setting includes setting how many of the processing blocks are to be invoked in the course of generating the target item embedding” step. The “language model” in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Further, the claim recites additional element – “a language model that includes a series of processing blocks, and wherein the setting includes setting how many of the processing blocks are to be invoked in the course of generating the target item embedding” which are Mere Data Gathering and Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulate and is in form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP: 2105.05 (g), “iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies,”
“iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,” and “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A”).
(Step 2B) 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 of using “language model” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Further, the other additional limitation “a language model that includes a series of processing blocks, and wherein the setting includes setting how many of the processing blocks are to be invoked in the course of generating the target item embedding” is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “a language model that includes a series of processing blocks, and wherein the setting includes setting how many of the processing blocks are to be invoked in the course of generating the target item embedding” only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec,”
“ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”);” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.” “v. Analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants, Genetic Techs,” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).” “v. Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”
Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
For claim 14, it is a system claim having similar limitations as recited in claim 1. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same analysis as explained in the rejection of rejected claim 1.
Additionally, claim 20 recites “A computing system for creating an index for item retrieval, comprising: an instruction store for storing computer-readable instructions; an index store for storing the index, the index including target item embeddings; a processing system for executing the computer-readable instructions to perform operations that include…”
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional elements – using “computing system,” “instruction store” and “processing system” to perform the steps. The “computing system,” “instruction store” and “processing system” in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B) 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 of using “computing system,” “instruction store” and “processing system” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
For claim 15, it is a system claim having similar limitations as recited in claims 1-2. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same analysis as explained in the rejection of rejected claims 1-2.
For claim 16, it is a system claim having similar limitations as recited in claim 5. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same analysis as explained in the rejection of rejected claim 5.
For claim 17, it is a system claim having similar limitations as recited in claim 6. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same analysis as explained in the rejection of rejected claim 6.
For claim 18, it is a system claim having similar limitations as recited in claims 9-11. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same analysis as explained in the rejection of rejected claim 9-11.
For claim 19, it is a computer-readable storage medium claim having similar limitations as recited in claim 1. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same analysis as explained in the rejection of rejected claim 1.
Additionally, claim 20 recites “A computer-readable storage medium for storing computer-readable instructions, a processing system executing the computer-readable instructions to perform operations, the operations comprising…”
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional elements – using “computer-readable storage medium” and “processing system” to perform the steps. The “computer-readable storage medium” and “processing system” in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B) 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 of using “computer-readable storage medium” and “processing system” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
For claim 20, it is a computer-readable storage medium claim having similar limitations as recited in claim 6. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same analysis as explained in the rejection of rejected claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and double patenting set forth in this Office action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 20170206416 A1), paragraph [0005], “According to an aspect there is provided a method including for each image of a plurality of images: processing the image by a textual generator model to obtain a set of phrases that are descriptive of the content of the image, wherein each phrase is one or more terms, processing the set of phrases by a textual embedding model to obtain an embedding of predicted text for the image, and processing the image using an image embedding model to obtain an embedding of image pixels of the image; and training a multimodal image classifier on the embeddings of predicted text for the images and the embeddings of image pixels for the images to produce, as output, labels of an output taxonomy to classify an image based on the image as input. Additional aspects can be provided in apparatus, systems, and computer program products”
Aggarwal et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 20200380403), paragraph [0078], “The operation module 314 then generates an embedding from the input 602 using a model 120 trained using machine-learning as implementing a single visually guided machine-learning embedding space 122 (block 704). The operation module 314, for instance, may generate a text embedding 306 from the input that is usable directly as part of the visually guided machine-learning embedding space (block 706) through use of the text encoder 302 trained as described above. The operation module 314 may also employ a digital image encoder 304 of the model 120 to generate a digital image embedding 308 from the input 602 that is usable directly as part of the visually guided machine-learning embedding space 122 (block 708). In this way, the model 120 supports use of text and/or digital images directly by the model 120, e.g., without further processing for use as part of the embedding space”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-3427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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 at (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 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.
/YU ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights