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 .
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, 21-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to Judicial Exceptions without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process, performable as an observation, evaluation or judgement. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recitation of generic computer and generic computer components does not sufficient to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only recites generic computer components, which are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The USPTO has published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under the Guidance, the Examiner first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (Guidance, Step 2A, prong 1); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) (9th Ed., Rev. 08.2017, 2018)) (Guidance, Step 2A, prong 2).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do the Examiner then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. (Guidance (Step 2B)).
Evaluate Step 2A Prong One
(a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an abstract idea;
(b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
In TABLE 1 below, the Examiner identifies in italics the specific claim limitations that recite an abstract idea.
TABLE 1
Independent Claim 1
Analysis Under Revised Guidance
(a) A database system comprises: a plurality of computing device clusters, wherein a computing device cluster of the plurality of computing device clusters includes a lead computing device, wherein the lead computing device is operably coupled to:
(b) determine that the computing device cluster is due for maintenance, wherein each computing device of the computing device cluster includes computing nodes
“determining that the computing device cluster is due for maintenance…” is an abstract idea, i.e., “a mental process”, performable as an observation, evaluation or judgement. For example, a person can perform this step in a human mind to determine a computing device is due for maintenance based on observing that certain time has passed since the last maintenance.
(c) determine a maintenance schedule for maintenance of the computing device cluster based on a threshold number of computing nodes of the computing device cluster being available during maintenance to process current and upcoming tasks of the computing device cluster
“determine a maintenance schedule for maintenance of the computing device cluster …” is an abstract idea, i.e., “mental process”. A person can determine maintenance schedule for a computing device in his/her mind or with the aid of pen and paper, based on number of other available computing devices.
(d) in accordance with the maintenance schedule: identify a computing device of the computing device cluster to take offline for the maintenance
“identify a computing device …to take offline for the maintenance” is an abstract idea, i.e., a “mental process”. A person can performe this step in his/her mind to identify a computing device.
(e) for an upcoming offline maintenance period, reallocate tasks to be executed by the computing nodes of the computing device to computing nodes of one or more other computing devices of the computing device cluster
“…relocate tasks to be executed by the computing nodes …to other computing devices…” is an abstract idea, i.e., “a mental process”. A person can perform this step in his/her mind to assign task to different computing devices.
(f) transition the computing device to an offline maintenance mode after completion of current tasks in accordance with the maintenance schedule
“transition the computing device to an offline maintenance mode…” is an abstract idea, i.e., “a mental process”. A person can perform this step in his/her mind by remembering that a particular computing device is offline/not available.
(g) after completion of the offline maintenance period: transition the computing device to an available mode
“transition the computing device to an available mode…” is an abstract idea, i.e., “a mental process”. A person can perform this step in his/her mind by remembering that a particular computing device is no longer offline and is available.
In view of the above analysis, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea under the Revised Guidance because the limitations (b) – (g) each recite mathematical relationship, mathematical calculation and/or a mental process. Independent claim 31 also recite an abstract idea because it includes similar limitations (b) – (g). Dependent claims 21-30, and 32-41 also recite abstract idea because they include limitations (b) – (g) by virtue of their dependencies to claims 1,31, respectively.
Dependent claims 21-30, and 32-41 further recites additional limitations. However, these limitations also recite abstract idea, i.e., “mental process” similar to the limitations of claims 1, 31 discussed above.
Evaluate Step 2A Prong Two:
Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrated the recited Judicial exception into a Practical Application of the exception.
Having determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis under the Guidance turns now to determining whether there are “additional element that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. The examiner determines whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions; and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application”.
Independent claim 1 recites “a database system”, “a plurality of computing device clusters”. Independent claim 31 recites limitations “a computer-readable memory”, a lead computing device” of a computing device cluster”, “a first memory”, “a second memory”, which are simply a generic computer component to store and execute computer instructions, which causes a generic computer system to perform the operations recited in limitations (b)-(g). The recitation of generic computer and generic computer components does not sufficient to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Guidance at 52 n.14 (“Performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping.”). That is, other than reciting a "database system " , “memory” or "computing device cluster”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Evaluate Step 2B:
Evaluate whether the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim does not add any specific limitations beyond what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Here, claims 1, 31 recite “a database system”, “computing device clusters”, “lead computing device”, “memory”, which are mere generic computer components that are recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-understood, routine, conventional activity when expressed at this high level of generality. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea) and is not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 21-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 31 contain the subject matter “wherein the lead computing device is operably coupled to: determine that the computing device cluster is due for maintenance, wherein each computing device of the computing device cluster includes computing nodes: determine a maintenance schedule for maintenance of the computing device cluster based on a threshold number of computing nodes of the computing device cluster being available during maintenance to process current and upcoming tasks of the computing device cluster; in accordance with the maintenance schedule: identify a computing device of the computing device cluster to take offline for the maintenance: for an upcoming offline maintenance period, reallocate tasks to be executed by the computing nodes of the computing device to computing nodes of one or more other computing devices of the computing device cluster: transition the computing device to an offline maintenance mode after completion of current tasks in accordance with the maintenance schedule: and after completion of the offline maintenance period: transition the computing device to an available mode”, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 1, 21-41 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The original claims 1-20 are directed to a method for execution by a node of a database system to perform a shutdown based on power consumption. The new claims 1, 21-41 are directed to a database system comprising a plurality of computing device clusters, including a lead computing device to determining that a computing device cluster is due for maintenance, determining a maintenance schedule, identify a computing device to take offline for maintenance, relocate tasks to be executed by the computing nodes to computing nodes of other computing devices. The newly submitted claims 1, 21-41 are therefore directed to patentably distinct inventions.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 1, 21-41 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KHANH B PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. 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.
/KHANH B PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
August 20, 2025