DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1 - 8 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites …
“identifying a first set of database records at the database system corresponding to the batch of jobs, wherein each respective database record of the first set of database records corresponds to a respective job of the batch of jobs;
identifying, for the respective jobs of the batch of jobs, a respective set of related database records associated with the respective job based on a respective value for a metadata field of the respective database record corresponding to the respective job, wherein the respective value for the metadata field uniquely identifies the respective set of related database records associated with the respective database record;
dividing the batch of jobs into a plurality of chunks based on the respective sets of related database records associated with the respective jobs of the batch of jobs, wherein each chunk of the plurality of chunks includes a respective subset of the batch of jobs having an aggregate workload based on the respective sets of related database records associated with the respective jobs of the respective chunk that is less than a chunking threshold; and
processing, at the database system, the plurality of chunks in parallel."
These identifying, dividing and processing functions are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
While the claim recites the additional element of "at the database system", this additional element merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(h)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the technological environment in which the judicial exception is being applied (“a cloud system including a plurality of cloud instances, each of the plurality of cloud instances being set up to respectively execute a functionally equivalent respective application relative to one another based on the same input data, the respective execution including a processing of the input data by the respective application to output a respective application result in each case;” and “a comparison device”).
As such, the recited additional elements of claim 1, specifically, “a cloud system including a plurality of cloud instances, each of the plurality of cloud instances being set up to respectively execute a functionally equivalent respective application relative to one another based on the same input data, the respective execution including a processing of the input data by the respective application to output a respective application result in each case;” and “a comparison device” which merely describe the technological environment in which the judicial exception is applied (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Furthermore these elements, considered alone and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not eligible. In short, there is no actual positive recitation of these elements being placed into use within the claim language which then lends the interpretation of these elements merely being present and not providing any/sufficient interaction that might otherwise be sufficient to support a finding of “significantly more.” Claims 7 and 8 also fail to introduce language that any use of these structures or any other structures and therefore are also found to lack a finding of “significantly more.”
Claims 2 – 8 depend on rejected base claim 1 and are therefore rejected in kind.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRAIG C DORAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3371. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 6:00pm.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at 5712766799. 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.
/CRAIG C DORAIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights