Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind and mathematical concepts.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is directed to mental processes and mathematical concepts.
The limitations ‘applying a dampening algorithm to the status of each of the plurality of conditions associated with each node, wherein the dampening algorithm determines a consistent state for each of the plurality of conditions; determining using the consistent state of each of the plurality of conditions associated with each node, a consensus status from each node of the at least one node, wherein the consensus status reflects a consensus state of each node of the at least one node’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
The limitation ‘using a consensus algorithm to determine a current status of a particular cluster based on the status of each of the at least one node associated with the particular cluster; using a second consensus algorithm to determine the state of the system based on the current status received from each cluster of the plurality of clusters’ is a mathematical concept, per paragraphs 0034, 0044 of the specification.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘by each cluster; by the control plane; organizing the plurality of nodes into a plurality of clusters, wherein each cluster of the plurality of clusters comprises at least one node’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘receiving by each cluster of the plurality of clusters a status request; receiving from each node of the at least one node, a status of each of a plurality of conditions associated with each node; reporting the current status of the particular cluster to a control plane of the system; indicating to a user the state of the system‘ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), in this case data gathering and reporting information.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation ‘wherein the at least one node comprises three or more nodes’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 3, the limitation ‘wherein the consensus state of each node is determined by determining a state of each of one or more conditions’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion and ‘applying a third consensus algorithm to determine a status of each node’ is a mathematical concept.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation ‘wherein dampening algorithm comprises: periodically obtaining a current state of each of the one or more conditions of each node – is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), applying a counter that is incremented each time a state change occurs in a particular condition of the one or more conditions of each node – is a mathematical concept, and setting the state of the particular condition to the current state of the particular condition when the counter is less than a threshold number, after a preset amount of time’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation ‘wherein after the preset amount of time when the counter is greater than or equal to a threshold number, the particular condition is placed in an exponential back-off state for a second preset amount of time’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 6, the limitation ‘wherein the plurality of clusters are organized into at least one workload cluster - is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and a consensus algorithm is used to determine a current status of a particular workload cluster based on the status of each of the clusters associated with the particular workload cluster – is a mathematical concept, and the current status of the particular workload cluster is reported to the control plane instead of the status of each of the associated clusters’ – is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 7, the limitation ‘wherein each of the plurality of nodes are edge nodes of a distributed computing system’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 8, the claim is directed to mental processes and mathematical concepts.
The limitations ‘applying a dampening algorithm to the status of each of the plurality of conditions associated with each node, wherein the dampening algorithm determines a consistent state for each of the plurality of conditions; determining using the consistent state of each of the plurality of conditions associated with each node, a consensus status from each node of the at least one node, wherein the consensus status reflects a consensus state of each node of the at least one node’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
The limitation ‘using a consensus algorithm to determine a current status of a particular cluster based on the status of each of the at least one node associated with the particular cluster; using a second consensus algorithm to determine the state of the system based on the current status received from each cluster of the plurality of clusters; and indicating to a user the state of the system’ is a mathematical concept, per paragraphs 0034, 0044 of the specification.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘a plurality of nodes; and a server, the server comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media coupled to the one or more processors that stores instructions operable when executed by the one or more processors to cause the system to perform a method for; by each cluster; by the control plane; organizing the plurality of nodes into a plurality of clusters, wherein each cluster of the plurality of clusters comprises at least one node’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘receiving by each cluster of the plurality of clusters a status request; receiving from each node of the at least one node, a status of each of a plurality of conditions associated with each node; reporting the current status of the particular cluster to a control plane of the system; indicating to a user the state of the system ‘ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), in this case data gathering and reporting information.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation ‘wherein the at least one node comprises three or more nodes’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 10, the limitation ‘wherein the consensus state of each node is determined by determining a state of each of one or more conditions and applying a third consensus algorithm to determine a status of each node’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion and ‘applying a third consensus algorithm to determine a status of each node’ is a mathematical concept.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation ‘wherein the dampening algorithm comprises: periodically obtaining a current state of each of the one or more conditions of each node – is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), applying a counter that is incremented each time a state change occurs in a particular condition of the one or more conditions of each node – is a mathematical concept, and setting the state of the particular condition to the current state of the particular condition when the counter is less than a threshold number, after a preset amount of time’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation ‘wherein after the preset amount of time when the counter is greater than or equal to a threshold number, the particular condition is placed in an exponential back-off state for a second preset amount of time’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 13, the limitation ‘wherein the plurality of clusters are organized into at least one workload cluster - is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and a consensus algorithm is used to determine a current status of a particular workload cluster based on the status of each of the clusters associated with the particular workload cluster – is a mathematical concept, and the current status of the particular workload cluster is reported to the control plane instead of the status of each of the associated clusters’ – is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 14, the limitation ‘wherein each of the plurality of nodes are edge nodes of a distributed computing system’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 15, with the exception of the limitations ‘At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors’, the claims is directed to mental processes and mathematical concepts.
The limitations ‘applying a dampening algorithm to the status of each of the plurality of conditions associated with each node, wherein the dampening algorithm determines a consistent state for each of the plurality of conditions; determining using the consistent state of each of the plurality of conditions associated with each node, a consensus status from each node of the at least one node, wherein the consensus status reflects a consensus state of each node of the at least one node’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
The limitation ‘use a consensus algorithm to determine a current status of a particular cluster based on the status of each of the at least one node associated with the particular cluster; use a second consensus algorithm to determine the state of the system based on the current status received from each cluster of the plurality of clusters; and indicating to a user the state of the system’ is a mathematical concept, per paragraphs 0034, 0044 of the specification.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors; by each cluster; by the control plane; organize the plurality of nodes into a plurality of clusters, wherein each cluster of the plurality of clusters comprises at least one node’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘receive by each cluster of the plurality of clusters a status request; receive from each node of the at least one node, a status of each of a plurality of conditions associated with each node; report the current status of the particular cluster to a control plane of the system; indicating to a user the state of the system ‘ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), in this case data gathering and reporting information.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation ‘wherein the at least one node comprises three or more nodes’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 17, the limitation ‘wherein the consensus state of each node is determined by determining a state of each of one or more conditions and applying a third consensus algorithm to determine a status of each node’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion and ‘applying a third consensus algorithm to determine a status of each node’ is a mathematical concept.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation ‘wherein the state of each of the one or more conditions is determined by: periodically obtaining a current state of each of the one or more conditions of each node – is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), applying a counter that is incremented each time a state change occurs in a particular condition of the one or more conditions of each node – is a mathematical concept, and setting the state of the particular condition to the current state of the particular condition when the counter is less than a threshold number, after a preset amount of time’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation ‘wherein after the preset amount of time when the counter is greater than or equal to a threshold number, the particular condition is placed in an exponential back-off state for a second preset amount of time’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 20, the limitation ‘wherein the plurality of clusters are organized into at least one workload cluster - is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and a consensus algorithm is used to determine a current status of a particular workload cluster based on the status of each of the clusters associated with the particular workload cluster – is a mathematical concept, and the current status of the particular workload cluster is reported to the control plane instead of the status of each of the associated clusters’ – is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
There is no prior art rejection for claims 1-20 because of the inclusion of the following limitations: ‘using, by each cluster, a consensus algorithm to determine a current status of a particular cluster based on the status of each of the at least one node associated with the particular cluster; reporting the current status of the particular cluster to a control plane of the system; using, by the control plane, a second consensus algorithm to determine the state of the system based on the current status received from each cluster of the plurality of clusters; and indicating to a user the state of the system’.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The 101 rejection still stands. Concerning the arguments of the 101-abstract idea, the dampening algorithm and the consensus algorithms are not technical solutions or ‘technology-based solution’ because both of these algorithms can be performed in the human mind and through mathematical concepts. There is no indication of exactly what is performing each of these algorithms. They are not tied to any hardware and/or software. Therefore, they can be performed even by using a computer as a tool.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The closest prior art: USPN 10114713 - (21) - As illustrated in FIG. 1, exemplary system 100 may also include one or more databases, such as database 120. In one example, database 120 may include configuration information 122 for storing configuration information about high-availability clusters (e.g., cluster-membership information) and health statuses 124 for storing information about the health statuses of high-availability clusters and/or nodes of high-availability clusters.----(40) - As used herein, the term “cluster-health message” generally refers to any communication that is broadcast to a node of a high-availability cluster from a health-status server associated with the high-availability cluster and that includes a health status of one of the node's peers that is based on a node-health message sent from the node's peer to the health-status server. Examples of exemplary cluster-health messages are illustrated in FIGS. 9 and 10. In some examples, a cluster-health message may contain a health status for each and every node of a high-availability cluster. In other examples, a cluster-health message may contain a health status for only one node of a high-availability cluster or a subset of nodes within a high-availability cluster.---(42) - As used herein, the phrase “node-health message” generally refers to any communication (e.g., a heartbeat message) sent from a node within a high-availability cluster to a health-status server associated with the high-availability cluster that indicates the health status of the node and that can be used by the health-status server to create cluster-health messages. Examples of exemplary node-health messages are illustrated in FIG. 8. The phrase “health status,” as used herein, generally refers to any indication that a node of a high-availability cluster is sufficiently healthy to perform computing tasks associated with the services performed by the high-availability cluster.;
USPN 20160224277 – abstract - Monitoring health of associated, but separated storage clusters can be done at both a node scope and a cluster scope. Monitoring the storage clusters at the cluster scope includes monitoring the network elements that support the storage clusters and connect the storage clusters. Initially, a fabric monitor in each cluster discovers cluster topology. This cluster topology is communicated and maintained throughout the managing storage elements of the storage clusters. After the storage cluster topologies have been discovered, the fabric monitors of each cluster can periodically determine status of network elements of the storage clusters. This allows the storage clusters to maintain awareness of interconnect status, and react to changes in status. In addition, each managing storage element monitors its own health. This information is aggregated to determine when to trigger corrective actions, alerts, and/or storage features in accordance with rules defined at the managing storage elements.;
USPN 20090113051 – Figure 5.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yolanda L Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-3653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30 am - 4 pm).
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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.
/Yolanda L Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113