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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/03/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s Response, filed 03/03/2026, amended claims 1-4, 6-10 & 16-20. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s claim amendments and supporting arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under §§ 102 & 103 of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
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 the judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite a method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium (claims 1, 10 & 16). These claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A Prong One
Independent claim 1 recites “wherein the maintaining includes dividing records into a particular number of shards that are distributed among the first number of storage nodes, wherein the first number is determined using a first formula of a plurality of formulas, and wherein the plurality of formulas use an index value that is based on a total number of shards that can be stored in the first number of storage nodes; in response to a change from the particular number of shards to a different number of shards, determining, by the computer system, a second number of storage nodes for storing the different number of shards, wherein the second number is determined using a second formula of the plurality of formulas, different than the first formula; selecting, by the computer system, a subset of the different number of shards to distribute across the second number of storage nodes”.
These steps perform analysis on information which has been received, which are acts of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, these steps are an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping.
Claims 2-4 & 7-9 recite limitations that are further extensions of the identified grouping.
Independent claim 10 recites “wherein the first number is determined using a first scaling approach that utilizes a first formula of a plurality of formulas, and wherein the plurality of formulas use an index value that is based on a maximum number of shards that can be stored in the first number of nodes; a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to cause the system to perform operations comprising: after a change from the first number of nodes to a second number of nodes, determining a distribution plan to distribute the particular number of shards across the second number of nodes, wherein the second number is determined using a second formula of the plurality of formulas, different than the first formula; selecting a subset of the particular number of shards to move within the second number of nodes”.
These steps perform analysis on information which has been received, which are acts of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, these steps are an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping.
Claims 11-13 & 15 recite limitations that are further extensions of the identified grouping.
Independent claim 16 recites “wherein the first number is determined using a first equation of a plurality of equations, and wherein the plurality of equations use an index value that is based on a total number of shards in the sharded database; in response to an indication that a number of storage nodes has changed from the first number to a second number, determining a number of shards per storage node based on the second number of storage nodes, wherein the second number is determined from a second equation of the plurality of equations, and wherein ones of the equations produce whole numbers that do not intersect with other ones of the plurality of equations; identifying a subset of the particular number of shards to reallocate across the second number of storage nodes”.
These steps perform analysis on information which has been received, which are acts of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, these steps are an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping.
Claims 17, 18 & 20 recite limitations that are further extensions of the identified grouping.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements includes only generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
These additional elements include: computer system, storage nodes, system, non-transitory computer-readable memory, processor, and non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Independent claim 1 recites “maintaining, by a computer system, a database stored across a first number of storage nodes; and moving, by the computer system, the subset of shards to one or more of the second number of storage nodes”.
The claim recites limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, such as receiving input, transmitting output, and updating/modifying data.
Claims 5 & 6 recite limitations that are further extensions of the identified grouping.
Independent claim 10 recites “a first number of one or more nodes that are coupled to a respective one or more data stores and configured to manage access to a database including a particular number of shards that are stored across the first number of nodes; and moving ones of the subset of shards to a different one of the second number of nodes”.
The claim recites limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, such as receiving input, transmitting output, and updating/modifying data.
Claim 14 recites limitations that are further extensions of the identified grouping.
Independent claim 16 recites “distributing a sharded database across a first number of storage nodes, including assigning ones of a particular number of shards to corresponding storage nodes; and moving the subset of shards to particular ones of the second number of storage nodes”.
The claim recites limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, such as receiving input, transmitting output, and updating/modifying data.
Claim 19 recites limitations that are further extensions of the identified grouping.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitations of generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality do not meaningfully limit the claim. Further, the insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and presentation do not meaningfully limit the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott A. Waldron whose telephone number is (571)272-5898. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at (571)270-0474. 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.
/Scott A. Waldron/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 03/21/2026