DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed April 21, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 21, 2025 has been entered.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 15 recite: determining that at least one of the first RPO policy and the second RPO policy is satisfied based on the first status data and the second status data, to obtain a determination. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally determine is a RPO policy is satisfies using observation and evaluation.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of “receiving, over a network interface, a first transaction, the first transaction being a WRITE operation request to write first data to a first table of the distributed database, the first table being stored in a non-transitory memory of the primary node, to update the first table of the distributed database, the first table being associated with a first Recovery Point Objective (RPO) policy according to which the first transaction is to commit, the first RPO policy indicating a first level of database support for the first table based on a first set of replica nodes of the distributed database, each replica node of the first set of replica nodes maintaining a copy of the first table in a respective non-transitory memory; receiving, over the network interface, a second transaction, the second transaction being a WRITE operation request to write second data to a second table of the distributed database, the second table being stored in a non-transitory medium of the primary node, to update the second table of the distributed database, the second table being associated with a second RPO policy according to which the second transaction is to commit, the second policy indicating a second level of database support for the second table based on a second set of replica nodes of the distributed database, each replica node of the second set of replica nodes maintaining a copy of the second table, in a respective non-transitory medium, the second RPO policy being different than the first RPO policy; receiving, from the first set of replica nodes of the distributed database, first
The additional element of “at least one processor and at least one machine-readable medium storing executable instructions which when executed by the at least one processor configure a primary node of a distributed database” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitations of “receiving” and “writing” are recited at a high level of generality. The “receiving” and “writing” elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and storing and retrieving information in memory, such that the limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II). As discussed above, the recitation of a processor and primary node of a distributed database to perform limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 2 recites the additional elements: wherein: the first RPO policy is based on a first flushed log sequence number (LSN) at one or more replica nodes of the first set of replica nodes; and the second RPO policy is based on a second flushed LSN at one or more replica nodes of the second set of replica nodes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because these limitations further describe the RPO policies associated with the received first transactions, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitations of “receiving” is recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network and storing and retrieving information in memory, such that the limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II). Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 3 recites the additional elements: wherein: receiving the first status data comprises receiving from each replica node of the first set of replica nodes a respective flushed LSN; and receiving the second status data comprises receiving from each replica node of the second set of replica nodes a respective flushed LSN. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because these limitations mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitations of “receiving” are recited at a high level of generality, such that they amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II). Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 4 recites: generating a first queue associated with the first table and the first RPO policy, the first queue indicating the first transaction via a first LSN; and generating a second queue associated with the second table and the second RPO policy, the second queue indicating the second transaction via a second LSN. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally generate queues associated indicating a transaction via LSN. There are no additional elements in claim 4. As such, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 5 recites: wherein determining that at least one of the first RPO policy and the second RPO policy is satisfied based on the status data and the second status data, to obtain the determination comprises: comparing the first status data with the first LSN to determine whether the first RPO policy is satisfied for the first transaction; and comparing the second status data with the second LSN to determine whether the second RPO policy is satisfied for the second transaction. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally compare status data with LSN via evaluation. There are no additional elements in claim 5. As such, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 6 recites: wherein each of the first RPO policy and the second RPO policy is based on one or more of: a log sequence number (LSN); an applied LSN; and an applied transaction timestamp. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because these limitations further describe the RPO policies associated with the received first transactions, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitations of “receiving” is recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network and storing and retrieving information in memory, such that the limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II). Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 7 recites the additional elements: wherein: receiving the first status data comprises receiving from each replica node of the first set of replica nodes one or more of: a respective first flushed LSN, a respective first applied LSN, and a respective first applied transaction timestamp; and receiving the second status data comprises receiving from each replica node of the second set of replica nodes, one or more of: a respective second flushed LSN, a respective second applied LSN, and a respective second applied transaction timestamp. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because these limitations mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitations of “receiving” are recited at a high level of generality, such that they amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II). Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 8 recites: generating a first queue associated with the first table and the first policy, the first queue indicating the first transaction via a first indicator based on one of: a first LSN and a first transaction timestamp; and generating a second queue associated with the second table and the second policy, the second queue indicating the second transaction via a second indicator based on one of: a second LSN and a second transaction timestamp, wherein determining that at least one of the first policy and the second policy is satisfied based on the first status data and the second status data, to obtain the determination comprises: comparing the first status data with the first indicator to determine whether the first RPO policy is satisfied for the first transaction; and comparing the second status data with the second indicator to determine whether the second RPO policy is satisfied for the second transaction. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally generate queues indicating transactions and compare status data with LSN via evaluation. There are no additional elements in claim 8. As such, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 9 recites: creating the first table; and assigning the first RPO policy to the first table. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper, create a table and assign a RPO policy to the table. There are no additional elements in claim 9. As such, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 10 recites: wherein assigning the first RPO policy to the first table comprises updating metadata of the first table to indicate the first RPO policy. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper, update metadata of the first table to indicate the first RPO policy. There are no additional elements in claim 10. As such, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 11 recites: creating the second table; and assigning the second RPO policy to the second table. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper, create a table and assign a RPO policy to the table. There are no additional elements in claim 11. As such, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 12 recites: modifying the first RPO policy to obtain a third RPO policy. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper, modify a first RPO policy to obtain a third RPO policy. There are no additional elements in claim 10. As such, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 13 recites: generating a third queue associated with the first table and the third RPO policy, the third queue indicating the third transaction. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper, generate a third queue associated with the first table and third RPO policy.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “receiving a third transaction, the third transaction being WRITE operation request to write third data to the first table of the distributed database to update the first table of the distributed database, the third transaction to commit according to the third RPO policy” is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitation of “receiving” is recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II). Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 14 recites: wherein modifying the first RPO policy comprises updating the metadata of the first table to indicate the third RPO policy. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper, update metadata of the first table to indicate the third RPO policy. There are no additional elements in claim 10. As such, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 16 recites: wherein each of the first RPO policy and the second RPO policy is based on one or more of: a flushed log sequence number (LSN); an applied LSN; and an applied transaction timestamp. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because these limitations further describe the RPO policies associated with the received first transactions, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitations of “receiving” is recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network and storing and retrieving information in memory, such that the limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II). Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 17 recites the additional elements: wherein: receiving the first status data includes configuring the primary node for receiving from each replica node of the first set of replica nodes, the first status data including one or more of: a first flushed LSN, a first applied LSN, and a first applied transaction timestamp; and receiving the second status data includes configuring the primary node for receiving from each replica node of the second set of replica nodes, the second status data indicating one or more of: a second flushed LSN, a second applied LSN, and a second applied transaction timestamp. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because these limitations mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitations of “receiving” are recited at a high level of generality, such that they amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II). Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 18 recites: generating a first queue associated with the first table and the first policy, the first queue indicating the first transaction via a first indicator based on one of: a first LSN and a timestamp of the first transaction; and generating a second queue associated with the second table and the second RPO policy, the second queue indicating the second transaction via a second indicator based on one of: a second LSN and a timestamp of the second transaction, wherein determining that at least one of the first policy and the second policy is satisfied based on the first status data and the second status data, to obtain the determination comprises: comparing the first status data with the first indicator to determine whether the first RPO policy is satisfied for the first transaction; and comparing the second status data with the second indicator to determine whether the second RPO policy is satisfied for the second transaction. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally generate queues indicating transactions and compare status data with LSN via evaluation. The additional element of at least one processor configures the primary node to perform recited tasks amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. As such, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 19 recites: creating the first table; and assigning the first RPO policy to the first able. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper, create a table and assign a RPO policy to the table. The additional element of at least one processor configures the primary node to perform recited tasks amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. As such, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 20 recites: modifying the first RPO policy to obtain a third RPO policy. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper, modify a first RPO policy to obtain a third RPO policy. The additional element of at least one processor configures the primary node to perform recited tasks amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. As such, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new 35 USC 101 rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-5599. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30, EST, M-F.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156 June 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights